Couple owes $20,000 Working for Families debt to government 'through no fault of our own'
f
Photo:
RNZ
Phoenix Ruka says he and his wife owe about $18,000 to $20,000 in Working for Families debt, despite always doing their best to ensure that they supplied the correct details about their income and circumstances.
"We've always stayed up-to-date with my salary and what we received from them and updated my salary every time it went up and down," Ruka said.
"What were receiving was what they assured us we were entitled to. But then we got a massive bill saying they had overpaid us."
He said his wife had been "relentless" in trying to work out what had happened.
It was discovered that a couple of years they had been underpaid, by many thousands of dollars, which they were reimbursed, but one year they were paid too much, which left them with the debt.
"I think the really frustrating part is that it's through no fault of our own. We owe a substantial amount of money. Now they're taking $350 a fortnight out of our bank account," Ruka said.
"We've gone back and forth and shown them our expenses, that we actually can't afford the amount they're taking. We've shown them our bills, our mortgage - they told us that they can't keep taking money if we can't afford it but we can't."
He said there had been multiple times where the money that was being taken to repay the debt was all that was left in their bank account.
It's an issue the government is attempting to tackle with proposed changes to the way that income is assessed for Working for Families.
As part of the Budget, it was announced that the threshold at which entitlements start to abate was to be increased slightly, and the government would look at options to help avoid the issue of Working for Families debt.
Inland Revenue's discussion document said 85 percent of Working for Families households received their payments weekly or fortnightly during the 2022 tax year, based on an income estimate.
Only 15 percent were receiving their credits annual based on the family's actual income once income tax had been assessed.
Those who were being paid weekly or fortnightly were subject to an end of year "square up" process by Inland Revenue, the document noted, although they were expected to update IRD with any relevant changes during the year.
In the 2022 year, only 24 percent of households receiving weekly or fortnightly payments and squared up by IRD had received the right amount of Working for Families credits.
Those who were overpaid are left with a debt to repay.
The document said debt was a particular problem for low- and middle-income families because it reduced their ability to meet their day to day costs in the future.
"Debt undermines the intent of the Working for Families scheme to support low to middle income families to meet basic needs and incentivise work."
The amount owed by Working for Families recipients has been steadily increasing over the years.
The document noted that in June 2024, 56,800 accounted for $273.5 million of Working for Families debt.
There were 21,418 instalment arrangements in place to clear $50 million of debt.
"Having to estimate annual income in advance is the most common reason why families do not receive the right amount during the year," the document said.
"For many families, estimating yearly income is difficult to do with any accuracy. Under the current income estimation model, families can still be overpaid when their income increases unexpectedly. For example, something as simple as a promotion or starting a new job towards the end of the year could cancel out their Working for Families entitlement and leave them in debt."
But the document said assessing people's income very regularly could mean a lot of changes in what people received.
If someone was paid fortnightly, some months could have two paydays and some three. Someone who was paid every four weeks would occasionally be paid twice in one month.
"Families would need to check in more often to report or confirm their income so that Inland Revenue can recalculate their payments. This would mean an increase in time spent interacting with Inland Revenue and its systems. This could also mean payments would vary every week or month, making it harder for families to budget and plan."
The discussion document said the government's current thinking was that a quarterly assessment could strike the right balance between responsiveness, certainty and recipient effort. It was seeking feedback on the idea.
The government also suggests a shift from calculating a recipient's Working for Families on the recipient's estimate of future income over the coming year to basing the calculation on past income they actually received. This would help to prevent people going into debt.
It is also proposing to simplify the residence criteria for Working for Families and require both caregivers and children to be physically present in New Zealand to qualify.
Susan St John, associate professor at the University of Auckland and Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson, said she thought the review was limited.
"There are huge difficulties for self-employed in more regular assessment. For income that is not earned regularly it can cause volatility and add to the admin or compliance load. There are other ways - in Australia they hold a portion back until the end of the year."
She said the review did not address the problems of Working for Families in a meaningful way.
"They arise because the threshold is way too low and the rates of clawback way too high."
She said the scheme was confusing with the different types of credits available, and the poorest 200,000 were excluded from the full package, missing out on about $5000 a year.
Revenue Minister Simon Watts said the government knew that it could be distressing to have debt to Inland Revenue. "We are interested in what people think of the proposals."
Another woman, Amy says she's still paying off the $12,000 in Working for Families debt she was landed with three years ago, amid a messy divorce.
She and her husband were shareholders in a business and, she says, he incorrectly reported some of the business profit as income in her name.
That prompted the government to think she had been overpaid credit and she was landed with a bill.
She now can only receive $172 a week in Working for Families credits for her three children because she is paying back the debt.
She is a single parent also paying a mortgage.
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
24 minutes ago
- RNZ News
The problem with local body candidates aligning with national political parties
By Julienne Molineaux of Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro Analysis - With accusations flying thick and fast last year about supposed "dysfunction" and a "shambles" at Wellington City Council, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown stepped in and appointed a Crown Observer. Announcing the move, Brown said the "financial and behavioural challenges" facing the council represented a problem under the Local Government Act. Part of the issue, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon claimed recently, was that there had been "way too much ideology and party politics". With the Green-endorsed current mayor Tory Whanau withdrawing from the next election, and former Labour cabinet minister Andrew Little announcing his mayoralty bid , it remains to be seen whether those partisan perceptions have diminished. But at the other end of the political spectrum, the ACT Party is actively recruiting candidates to stand at the 2025 elections using its branding and policy platform. The ACT website states clear policy positions for prospective candidates to campaign on. The Local Government Act, on the other hand, requires elected members to consult with people affected by their decisions and to do so with an open mind. Reinforcing this point, the Office of the Auditor-General says those managing public resources must avoid holding pre-determined positions: You are not required to approach every decision as though you have given it no prior thought, or have no existing knowledge or opinion. However, you are required to keep an open mind, and you must be prepared to change or adjust your views if the evidence or arguments warrant it. If ACT is successful in building a local government ticket nationally, this tension - and the kind of tensions recently at play in Wellington - could be seen in other councils. Political party affiliations in local government are not actually the norm. In 2019, winning councillors around New Zealand mostly left the affiliation section of their nomination forms blank (60 percent) or stated they were "independent" (18 percent). Only 3 percent of winning councillors were affiliated with a registered political party, and 4 percent with a local grouping or ticket. But the picture changes in our three largest councils: Auckland Council, Christchurch City Council and Wellington City Council. No winning councillors in those cities left the affiliation section blank in 2019, 38 percent ran on a local ticket, and 22 percent for a political party. And there are good reasons for local body candidates to run as party-endorsed or on a local ticket, as former local body politician Shirin Brown outlined in her PhD thesis on Local Boards in Auckland: shared costs, shared resources (such as party volunteers to deliver leaflets), shared expertise and brand recognition for voters. Importantly, a candidate with low name recognition can coat-tail on higher profile candidates on the same ticket, or the public profile of the ticket overall. Other research suggests the strategy works: in Auckland, at least, those who stand with a group affiliation are more likely to be elected than those who do not. In larger urban areas, with high populations and low levels of representation per capita, visible groupings of local government candidates make sense. Research reveals a major obstacle to voting in local elections is a lack of information about candidates and what they stand for. Once elected, though, there are questions about the cohesion of groupings. Shirin Brown found the ad-hoc nature of some local tickets for Auckland's local boards - formed for strategic election reasons but with little coherence or discipline once elected - sometimes collapsed once in office. In Auckland, ward councillors and the mayor have run with group branding, but there is little evidence of whipping along party, ticket or broad ideological lines. As a councillor for the Manukau ward (2016-2022), the late Efeso Collins stood for election as a Labour Party candidate, but he voted against some initiatives of the Mayor Phil Goff, a former leader of the Labour Party. Communities and Residents (C&R) councillors have mostly been aligned with the National Party, but have also included ACT and unaffiliated centre-right candidates. While they often voted against Goff, and earlier against Labour Party member Len Brown (mayor from 2010-2016), it wasn't always as a uniform block. Indeed, Brown's initiatives were simultaneously opposed by Cathy Casey (City Vision) on the left and Cameron Brewer (C&R) on the right. As this year's local elections approach, the Crown Observer for Wellington City Council, Lindsay McKenzie, has written candidate guidelines about political affiliations and their legal obligations to avoid predetermined positions. These cover the promises they make on the campaign trail as well as how they act once elected. They address the tension between the democratic act of signalling your values and policy positions to voters, and the requirement under the Local Government Act to make decisions based on local concerns rather than political affiliation. As McKenzie points out, having an open mind is not just an issue for party members. It also applies to those who stand as independents and adhere rigidly to policy positions they campaigned on. Irrespective of their affiliation, candidates in the upcoming local elections have a tightrope to walk - between declaring their values and policy positions, and being receptive to new information and perspectives once elected. Voters need to accept elected members may have access to information that was not available when they were campaigning. And the political media needs to give some leeway to councillors and mayors who change their positions.

RNZ News
27 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Govt to invest over $15 million to upgrade infrastructure in Milford Sound
transport infrastructure 30 minutes ago The government is investing over $15 million to upgrade infrastructure and enhance conservation in Milford Sound - also confirming flights and cruise ships will continue to operate. Tourism reporter Tess Brunton spoke to Charlotte Cook.

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
More NZers oppose govt's pay equity changes: Poll
money employment 25 minutes ago A new poll shows more New Zealanders oppose rather than favour the government's pay equity shakeup, with a clear majority saying the public should have been consulted first. Independent pay equity expert and consultant Amy Ross spoke to Charlotte Cook.