New Sanctions Drive Benefit Accountability
Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says the Money Management and Community Work Experience sanctions can apply to a first obligation failure while getting a main benefit, such as Jobseeker Support.
'From today, Money Management means people who don't comply may have half their main benefit put on a payment card for four weeks. This is a sensible move,' Louise Upston says.
'The card can only be used at approved shops for groceries, transport, health, and education-related items. People will continue to get the remainder of their main benefit, as well as any supplementary assistance (such as for ongoing accommodation costs), directly into their bank accounts.
'Community Work Experience means people with work obligations who don't comply may have to find and participate in at least five hours of community work experience per week at one or more community or voluntary sector organisations, for four weeks.
'Also from today, it's now mandatory for some people, and their partners, 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, instead of one.
'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,' Louise Upston says.
The introduction marks the launch of the second phase of the Traffic Light System. The first phase was launched last year to help clients 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.
'Around 98 per cent 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,' Louise Upston says.
The Minister again recognised the efforts of frontline MSD staff working with job seekers.
'I thank MSD staff who have undergone training to support clients around the Traffic Light changes. 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.
Notes:
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 MSD within 5 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 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 clients 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
Scoop
40 minutes 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
2 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?
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
‘Turning women's wages into a political piggy bank'
It's a short walk from Parliament to the National Library – barely two minutes – but the journey comes with several reminders of the history of women's rights in New Zealand. Navigate a pedestrian crossing with a signal in the shape of famous suffragist Kate Sheppard, and you're greeted with a sign for the library's exhibition on the 1893 petition (spearheaded by Sheppard) that helped secure Kiwi women the right to vote. Little wonder then that the venue was chosen for the opening day of the People's Select Committee on Pay Equity. Made up of 10 female ex-MPs from four different parties, the group has come together to scrutinise the pay-equity changes rushed through under urgency by the coalition without any public input. As former Labour minister Nanaia Mahuta put it as she opened proceedings: 'We are here to do what the Government did not.' Perhaps wary of the wrath generated by the controversial changes, Mahuta asked submitters to refrain from making comments that 'may be defamatory of any individual'. She and the committee didn't need to worry, at least for the first day, with a surprisingly good-humoured mood among those gathered. Hugs, kisses and selfies were in plentiful supply as the (overwhelmingly female) crowd filtered into the room, while there were light moments throughout: 'These days, I pretend I'm retired,' former National MP and feminist scholar Marilyn Waring quipped as she introduced herself. Yet the subject at hand was undeniably heavy, with submitters expressing frustration at both the secretive and hasty nature of the Government's reforms and the real-world consequences for women being paid unfairly low wages. 'What was once a relatively straightforward, albeit occasionally lengthy road is now one filled with various potholes and roadblocks. The Government continues to insist it's a road, but it's not one that anyone can travel along anymore,' NZ Council of Trade Unions national secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges said. Ansell-Bridges said moving the threshold for claims from arguability to merit meant some would never get started – not because they lacked merit, but because the requirements could not be met unless the process was already underway, creating a Catch-22 situation. A workable and sustainable alternative to the existing pay-equity regime would have been celebrated by the Government, she said, the subject of public consultation and a full parliamentary process rather than rammed through overnight with no advance warning. 'It speaks to the shame felt by this Government, whose job it is to look after the interests of all New Zealanders, as they strip away half our population's access to the fundamental rights.' The financial cost of the changes goes beyond hypothetical foregone income in the future, too. Aged Care Association chief executive and former New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin said the sector had spent close to $500,000 in the last year gathering information for a care and support workers' pay equity claim, with much of the work done at the Government's request – even as it was working in secret to overhaul the regime. 'We invested significant time and resources only to find those efforts wasted – this breach of good faith will take some time and genuine effort on behalf of governments to repair,' Martin said. She painstakingly laid out the complex range of duties carried out by aged-care workers: clinical support and medical assistance, the administration of medication, nutritional care, using de-escalation techniques to manage agitation, providing companionship, and maintaining 'warmth and patience' even in challenging moments, to name just a few. 'It is complex, skilled, and physically and emotionally demanding work that requires ongoing training, professional resilience and unwavering commitment to quality of life for some of New Zealand's most vulnerable citizens … 'If you listen to the jobs that they do, the skills that they have, you could immediately go out yourself and find a male-dominated sector that is required to have the same skills and that could not be employed at the price that we are currently paying our carers – but we cannot do it if the Government washes its hands of its responsibilities.' Former Governor-General and High Court judge Dame Silvia Cartwright provided a legal view of the Government's changes, noting the retrospective nature of shutting down claims already underway went against principles of good law-making and could damage New Zealand's international reputation. Cartwright predicted 'significant amounts of litigation' related to the new law, while noting a number of appeal rights had been narrowed by the changes. 'I think that the courts, if they can get a case before them after getting through all the very many barriers, will do their best to make things fairer, but it's going to be very difficult.' Tony McCombs, the great-grandson of New Zealand's first woman MP Elizabeth McCombs. Photo: Sam Sachdeva Somewhat ironically, the loudest applause of the day went to one of the few men in the audience. Tony McCombs, the great-grandson of New Zealand's first woman MP Elizabeth McCombs, offered a scathing criticism of the Government as he reflected on his ancestor's legacy. 'In her maiden speech way back in 1933 she said, 'I wish to work for the women and children of this country, and I hope to see the day when women will receive equal pay for equal work' … 'If Elizabeth McCombs were here, she would rise with righteous rage and ask, 'How dare you? How dare you erase progress with the stroke of a pen? How dare you undo a century of struggle in a single vote? How dare you silence the voices of working women and call it reform?'' McCombs said he wanted his own daughter (also named Elizabeth, and working as an early childhood teacher) and granddaughters to live in a country where they were treated fairly and equally, 'not fighting the same battles over and over again'. 'These changes are not about fairness. They are not about sustainability. They are about saving money at the expense of those already underpaid, turning women's wages into a political piggy bank.' With the committee's hearings continuing until October, and over 1500 submissions received, such expressions of anger will hardly be unique – but will they change anything? Asked about the hearings on Monday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon indicated he had no regrets about the Government's decision, and no intention of reversing the changes. 'Look, I mean, I think we have canvassed this area at the time when we first talked about it, which is that we fundamentally feel the system got too broad, too loose, and, frankly, unworkable.' Asked by Newsroom what she hoped would come of the committee's work, Mahuta was non-committal. 'I think the Government's already reflecting on a process that has fallen short of keeping faith with women in the workforce – women who are doing very, very valuable work as teachers, as carers under some of the hardest conditions. 'So if they're not already reflecting on the process and what they might do, we're certainly listening to the people.' Barring a change of government at next year's election – and a change in law following it – providing the public with a sense of comfort in being heard may be all the group can hope for.
