And one coalition partner has publicly called for the policy to go even further, writes Stewart Sowman-Lund in today’s extract from The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
New framework for the welfare system
The government is progressing with a suite of new measures it says will help drive beneficiaries back into the workforce, but has critics worried will cause further harm. A National Party election year pledge, to introduce a traffic light system for job seekers, has been implemented as of yesterday. As RNZ reported, that means benefit recipients will be categorised based on their level of compliance with work or social obligations – green means all requirements are being followed, orange means an obligation has been failed, and red will mean a sanction is issued. And, from next year, additional changes will be brought into place.
The Post’s Kelly Dennett reports that these include extending the period a failure to meet obligations counts against a beneficiary from one year to two, making it more likely a benefit would be cancelled, and requiring jobseeker recipients to reapply every six months. There are also two new “non-financial” sanctions that can be applied against a beneficiary who fails an obligation for the first time. One would see half of a person’s benefit placed onto an electronic payment card that can only be used in approved shops to buy essential items, while the other would involve community work to “build skills and confidence”.
How did we end up here?
None of this is hugely surprising given the National Party, while on the election trail, had proposed much of it. But beyond that, reforming the welfare system and proposing a so-called tough love approach for benefit receivers is well-trodden National Party terrain. In 2019, for example, the party floated the prospect of a “no jab, no pay” policy that would force some beneficiaries to immunise their children – a proposal endorsed at the time by a rookie MP called Christopher Luxon. There were also considerations to a money management system somewhat akin to the newly announced payment card that would have automatically deducted rent and other bills from the benefit. Then-National Party leader Simon Bridges said he made no apologies for the “hardline approach”, reported RNZ. Several years earlier, under prime minister John Key, tweaks were made to the welfare system that were dismissed as “beneficiary bashing” by former MP Hone Harawira. That phrase has been thrown around again this week, with Labour’s Chris Hipkins accusing the government of forcing people to look for jobs that don’t exist, reported the Herald’s Julia Gabel. The latest unemployment statistics show 33,000 more New Zealanders are without work compared to this time last year.
‘Not sure’…?
The government wants to see the number of jobseeker benefits drop by 50,000 by the end of the decade. Part of yesterday’s announcement will make it easier for sanctioned beneficiaries – those in the red setting – to have their benefit cancelled entirely which would technically contribute to the target but not necessarily because they’ve entered the workforce. So far this quarter, 1,500 people have already had their benefit fully cancelled. There was a rather public communication hiccup in yesterday’s announcement when social development minister Louise Upston was asked by Stuff’s Tova O’Brien what might happen to those who have their benefits cut. The minister simply said: “Not sure.” Appearing later on ThreeNews, O’Brien said the minister’s office later clarified that beneficiaries with children could not be cut off support but could have their benefit reduced. O’Brien argued that regardless of this eleventh hour clarification it was “fair to expect” the minister to come armed with facts and evidence.
The place of sanctions
As noted by The Spinoff’s Madeleine Chapman in a searing opinion piece this morning, Upston claimed that a sanction like money management was less severe than having your benefit halved. “We are saying you get the same amount of benefit, just less freedoms,” said Upston, which Chapman pointed out was language that sounded like it was about people in the criminal justice system. One coalition partner in the current government has publicly called for the policy to go further, reported Interest’s Dan Brunskill. In 2022, David Seymour said he’d see all beneficiaries that were capable of work but choosing not to placed on income management, while in 2017 proposed that beneficiaries who “keep having children” should also have limited control over their finances. Seymour reiterated both of those positions yesterday.