Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill
Submission
By Janet Robin, President, Waitemata Unite Union
(Thanks to Auckland Action Against Poverty for
much of the material used in this submission)
Summary
of the Bill
The Social Security
(Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill changes the current benefit
categories, introduces new work ability assessments and so called “social
obligations”, and extends work preparation requirements and pre-benefit
activities. In addition, it increases
the use of sanctions via benefit cuts and cancellations. This Bill also allows for the contracting out
of services and the provision of goods and services by Work and Income
“preferred suppliers”.
Summary
of Reasons for Submission:
What this Bill does
not do is focus on job creation, adequate benefit levels, affirm the importance
of care work, or realise that not all work is good work. Instead, it individualises the problem,
stigmatises beneficiaries, increases the stress and pressure of receiving a
benefit, removes beneficiaries rights to make a number of decisions about their
own lives, and implements a number of sanctions for failing to jump when the
Chief Executive (Work and Income) tells you to.
Summary of submissions (and some additional material to main submissions )
Single Parents
I wish to emphasise the importance
of recognising mothering and caring as work, which should be fully valued and
supported by society. Single parents caring for children should not be required
to seek paid work unless they determine that this is in the interests of their
family. The Domestic Purposes Benefit should be
retained in the form it was originally intended for when it was introduced: as
a support for the single parent to nurture and raise her children.
The
interests and welfare of the children should come first, not the interests of
employers to have a large number of people on the labour market to choose
from. Numerous studies have shown that
the best form of care for young children is from their own parents at home,
particularly the under threes, where the one to one relationship is vitally
important for the bonding and attachment needs of the child to be met. This
cannot be met in impersonal day-care with unqualified staff and low staff to
child ratios. Many single parents are dedicated parents who must have the right
to decide what is in the best interests of their own children. Compulsory day care and compulsory schooling
is contrary to the rights of the child and o the
parent to determine the best
education for their children, which may include home schooling.
Punishing parents and their children for not
complying with arbitrary rules by 6 month stand-downs and halving benefits is
contrary to the United Nations Rights of the Child including the right to food
, shelter, and to relationship with their family. The provisions regarding compulsory day care
and schooling, compulsory schooling, and
compulsory medical checks are
discriminatory on the grounds of employment status and contrary to the NZ Bill
of Rights, as parents who are not on
benefits are not subjected to the same compulsion.
Compulsory Medical
Checks contravene the parent’s right to choose the most appropriate health care
for their own children, including following the advice of complementary health
practitioners.
Compulsory day care,
and medical visits does not take into account that the costs of these may be
unaffordable, as subsidies only cover part of the cost of day care, and do not
cover transport costs to doctors.
Contracted Providers
Provisions in the Bill
which require people to use contracted providers, whether this is the payment
card issued to youth, or the disability allowance, or any other, limits the
choices of these people to choose the cheapest and healthiest and most
effective options for themselves, in consultation with their own health
professionals. Overseas these sorts of
provisions have often meant, for example that fresh fruit and vegetables have
not been available, and instead people are forced to purchase unhealthy
processed foods from limited suppliers. Another problem has been the difficulty
and expense to get transport to particular suppliers. These provisions are not
in the interests of the health and well being of clients and their children,
but rather in the interests of the suppliers’ profits.
Forcing parents, the sick and disabled, and the elderly onto the Job Market
I oppose the forcing
of people such as parents, the sick and disabled, and the elderly (but not yet
pensioners) onto the labour market (such as widows and women alone) and being required to engage in full time
search for work. This is degrading and stressful for these people especially
when in the current climate they face major discrimination and are unlikely to
be given work.
This is especially the case if youth can be employed instead at
a fraction of the cost with the new youth rates legislation.
Instead the
government should be creating jobs, and assisting these people to find work
that is suitable for their own health, family, and age related needs and
skills.
It is also ridiculous to force
highly qualified people to compete against unskilled people for unskilled jobs.
This again, only benefits employers who can force wages and conditions down.
Rather, people should be helped to find work that suits their skills and
abilities, and the government needs to recognise its responsibilities to create
employment which utilises these skills and which can provide flexibility which
suits the employee’s health and family needs. Requiring older women- alone to available full time on the
labour market is discriminatory when at the same time they do not have the same
rights as other people to study, as they
have restricted access to student loans on account of their age.
Main Submission
Unemployment Benefit replaced with Job Seeker
Support
The repealing of Sections 89 to 99AB
abolish the Unemployment Benefit and repeal all relevant sections (all that
remains is one section covering a change that occurred in 2001). The replacement benefit is Jobseeker Support
which is covered by 12 new sections which, it is claimed, are very similar to
the repealed unemployment benefit sections but with sickness benefit section
(repealed by clause 20) merged into them.
Submission : Retain the name for this
benefit as "unemployment benefit". People can be "job
seekers" when there are jobs to seek for everyone who needs one. This renaming removes a focus on the absence
of paid work in New Zealand and adds the potential to blame the seekers of jobs
if they fail to find one.
Retain
the sickness benefit category. People
with chronic illnesses require additional support not increased surveillance,
work testing and work ability assessments.
Invalids Benefit
replaced with Supported Living Payment
New sections 40C-40H replace the current
Invalid's Benefit with the Supported Living Payment. There is more restrictive access to this
benefit with everyone who applies for the Supported Living Payment or who is
currently receiving the Invalid's Benefit required to re-see their doctor, or
one decided upon by Work and Income and to undergo a 'Work Ability Assessment'
(under new sections 100B and 100C).
Those receiving the Support Living Payment can also be asked to see
their doctor, or one specified by Work and Income, again – or multiple times –
at Work and Income's discretion. Those
who fail to meet the stringent requirements of the Supported Living Payment
will instead receive the Job Seeker Support Payment (at a lower rate), which
loses the specific needs that people living with impairments, mental illness,
or other chronic conditions may have, such as MS.
There are also "social obligations" for
those receiving the Supported Living Payment, their partners, and/or their full
time carers.
Submission: I disagree with the addition
of Section 40c- 40H. This does not
recognise the work already present in being a carer or the difficulties
associated with living with a disability, nor is it likely to enhance peoples
lives in any substantial way. There are
many issues with requiring people to repeatedly see a Doctor for Work Ability
Assessments. This applies additional
stress and hardship to what already might be a difficult situation and could
lead to on-going harassment and doctors’ visits. Further, the use of Work and Income
recommended doctor's (already allowed for under the current Act) may lead to
people being moved off the Supported Living Payment through lack of judgement
or understanding of the individuals health conditions by Work and Income
doctors. People have already raised
issues with ACC specified “hatchet” doctors – the same ones that may likely be
used by Work and Income.
Sickness Beneficiaries Moved onto Job Seeker
Support
Current sections 54, 54A, 54B, 54D, 54DA,
54E, 54F are to be repealed and in doing so abolish the Sickness Benefit. Those currently receiving the Sickness
Benefit will then be moved on to the Job Seeker payment (with possible
work-test exemptions).
Submission : I disagree with the repealing of
current sections 54, 54A, 54B, 54D, 54DA, 54E, 54F and argue that we need to
retain the Sickness Benefit category.
Pre-benefit Activities
New sections 11E-11H extends existing
pre-benefit activities to Emergency Benefit applicants and Sole Parent Support
applicants, in addition to the partners/spouses of those applying for Job
Seeker Support, Supported Living Payment and the Emergency Benefit. It also extends this requirement to those
applying for Job Seeker Support on the grounds of sickness, injury or
disability (who previously would not have had pre-benefit activities under the
Sickness Benefit). If applicants or
their partners/spouses do not fulfil these pre-benefit activities within 20
working days of first contact, they can be denied the ability to apply for a
benefit until they comply. There is no
limit to the number of activities required.
Submission : I disagree
with the additions of 11E-11H in their entirety. While I/we consider pre-benefit
requirements an unnecessary burden for any person whose situation has compelled
them to seek state assistance (as it adds to the stress they and their families
are already facing), I particularly disagree with this Bill’s extension of
already existing pre-benefit requirements to
Emergency Benefit applicants, Sole Parent Support applicants and those
applying for Job Seeker support on the grounds of sickness, injury or
disability, and to the partners/spouses of those applying for Job Seeker
Support, Supported Living Payment and the Emergency Benefit.
It is
unconscionable for someone requiring an Emergency Benefit or their partner to
have "pre-benefit" activities. If they fit the criteria for an
Emergency Benefit, that should be granted straight away.
Benefit
applicants who are sick, injured or disabled: These applicants are applying for
a benefit not because they need a job but because they have become unable to
work for a period of time. Therefore compelling them to perform activities to
help them become “job ready” prior to receiving the benefit is cruel and
unnecessary.
Partners of benefit
applicants: The inclusion of obligations on partners/spouses is worrying due to
its privacy and coercion implications. It could put stress on important
relationships; it involves the compelled divulging of information about one
person (the applicant) to another (their partner); and means that the benefit
applicant cannot rely simply on themselves to do all that Work and Income
requires, but is reliant and dependent on their partner. In many partnerships,
this is not merely the matter of a simple request. 11H(3) does not adequately
protect the benefit applicant in any case of partner non-compliance. The
possibility that a partner or spouse could be a superannuate or already in
low-paid work is not acknowledged by the bill – these people can also be asked
to perform tasks to improve their “job readiness”.
Work
Preparation
The amendment of 60Q extends work
preparation requirements to those who have “an additional child” who is under
one year of age and those receiving the Supported Living Payment who are caring
for a “patient”. It also allows for work preparation to be
under the guidance of a contracted service provider, including for the purposes
of testing the persons compliance.
Submission: I disagree with the amendment of 60Q. Without
government investment in employment creation, this is largely an exercise in
creating a profitable enterprise for private contractors to Work and Income,
which will result in no measurable benefit for the vast majority of
beneficiaries. In addition it adds extra
stress and pressure on those already work exempt for care or familial
reasons. I/we can not imagine how a
single parent with more than one child, one of whom is under one year old, will
be able to manage the time and stress of work preparation. Further, this
amendment does nothing to re-instate the type of work preparation many single
parents would like – such as the Training Incentive Allowance.
Work
Ability Assessment
New sections 100B and 100C introduce a Work Ability Assessment. Any
person receiving Sole Parent Support, Supported Living Payment, Emergency
Benefit or Jobseeker Support may be required to participate in a work ability
assessment. (People who are terminally ill are excused. People who have little
or no capacity for work and whose condition is deteriorating are also excused.)
The work ability assessment procedure is not specifically defined – it
is left to be “determined by the chief executive”. It may cover, what kind of benefit the person
should be on, what sort of employment is “suitable” for them, what work
preparation they should do and what assistance they may need to get
employment. They can be reassessed from
time to time as the Chief Executive (Work and Income) sees fit.
Submission: I disagree with the
addition of 100B and 100C. There is
already a process for Doctors to inform Work and Income of the work capacity of
beneficiaries. Similar UK policies have
proven disastrous with horror stories of people being told by private
contractors that they are capable for work when it was just not physically
possible. There are fears also around
the “hatchet” doctors that may be used in these assessments along with private
contractors and that their focus may be to claim people are work ready, no
matter the cost. There is also the possibility of unnecessary harassment
through numerous assessments. People move in to work when their health and
familial circumstances allow. People do
not need to be told when they should take work, or what kind of work that
should be.
Social Obligations
New sections 60RA, 60RB and 60RC
introduce social obligations to all parents who receive a benefit, and
sanctions for non compliance.
New section 60RA covers the obligations of those
receiving a benefit who have a dependant child (and their partner even if not
legal guardian of the child). These
obligations include that children: must be in Early Childhood Education or
school from 3 years onwards; up to date with wellchecks; and enrolled with a registered
GP.
60RB notes
that the Chief Executive (Work and Income) must take reasonable steps to ensure
beneficiaries (to whom social obligations apply) are aware of their social
obligations and consequences for failure to comply.
And new
section 60RC outlines the sanctions for failure to comply with social
obligations, including that the person must be notified three times to allow
them to comply. It also allows for
“intensified case management” of the person if they fail to comply – including
Work and Income management of beneficiaries benefit. Partners or legal guardians can also be
sanctioned for non compliance.
Submission: I disagree with the additions of 60RA,
60RB and 60RC. Social obligation
requirements take away the rights of parents to choose what is best for
themselves and their families. Families
that struggle to care for their children well should be supported by social
workers, not made to suffer more with cuts to their benefits. If MSD were really interested in increasing
participation in things like ECE they should increase the accessibility of such
services and cover additional costs of children's attendance.
Contracted Service Providers
The new section 60GAG obliges anybody
receiving one of the three main benefits (and their spouse or partner—if they
have one), to go to whatever contracted services the Chief Executive (Work and
Income) thinks is necessary E.g. To see a Work and Income doctor, attend work
preparation courses or attend Work Ability assessments held by outside businesses
or institutions. There are sanctions for
non compliance.
Submission:
I disagree with the addition of 60GAG.
This is very broad and gives sweeping powers to Work and Income to
direct the lives of beneficiaries and may largely be for the benefit of private
contractors. Similar policy applies in
the UK where private contractors are employed to find “suitable” work for
beneficiaries – the outcome of which has been many people moving off benefit
and into work when they either were not ready, for health or familial reasons,
or into work that was unsuitable – with the private contractor being paid great
profits for doing so. I/we also have
concerns over the sharing of private information with these service providers,
these concerns were heightened after the recent availability of private
beneficiary information at public Work and Income kiosks.
Preferred Suppliers
The
amendment of Section 69C allows for the requirement of any goods and services,
purchased with a Disability Allowance, to be purchased from a “preferred
supplier” that has been contracted by the Chief Executive (Work and
Income). It also allows for this money
to be paid directly to the supplier.
There is no right to appeal these decisions.
Submission:
I disagree with the amendment of 69C. This
amendment does not add anything positive to the lives of people living with
disabilities. This amendment may have
major issues for people who require specific items that are not available from
a preferred supplier. Also, there are issues in terms of flexibility of choice
– it is common for the disability allowance allocated to not be enough to cover
all disability related expenses, currently people are able to manage the money
they are allocated and can redirect it to the items or services they know to be
of greatest importance. This amendment
will remove the ability to do so.
This provision does not allow the client to purchase the remedies of
their choice and those prescribed by their own health professionals, which may
not be available from the contracted providers. Also the “preferred supplier” may not be
available locally and involve expensive travel to reach.
Preferred Suppliers Paid Directly
The amendment of Section 124 outlines that the applicant of any
special assistance goods or services for them or their family must be purchased
from a preferred Work and Income supplier nominated in writing by the Chief
Executive (Work and Income) at the price determined by the contract under
section 125AA with that supplier.
It allows for this money to be paid directly to the supplier rather than
to the beneficiary. It also says that
this cannot be appealed.
Submission: I disagree with the amendment of Section 124. There are many problems with this
amendment. Ultimately this amendment
will give people less control over
their money, and thus their lives, which will not improve their well being but
will in fact reduce their ability to make their own decisions. For example, if
someone is receiving the maximum disability allowance (but not enough to cover
their disability costs) that person may currently choose which items they feel
are more necessary than the others and pay for these items or costs, in this
new case, they would have less flexibility over which goods and services were
purchased. Further, the goods and
services provided by suppliers may not fit the exact needs of those requiring
them and may possibly be provided at a higher cost. This can currently be seen with the use of
payment cards for youth parents who have found that the nappies they need are
more expensive from approved supermarkets than the ones they can find
elsewhere.
In addition certain suppliers will benefit from these policies, with
possible monopoly provision, potentially limiting quality and choice.
Sanctions
New section 116B adds a number of
different reasons that a person can be sanctioned under Section 117. These include if the person fails to meet an
obligation of a contracted service provider, (eg for work preparation, social
obligations, work testing, etc). If the
person fails to meet their “social obligations” under new Section 25. If they fail to meet their work preparation,
work ability assessment, or interview obligations obligations. And if they fail to meet their work test
obligations, including drug test obligations.
According to s 117, for most situations the first failure means benefit
is cut by 50%. If the person has not
complied with the obligation within 4 weeks, the benefit is reduced to zero.
The second failure means the benefit is suspended until the obligation is met.
The third failure means the benefit is cancelled and the person cannot reapply
for 13 weeks.
Submission: I disagree with the addition of 116B.
It does not demonstrably enhance or improve the lives of beneficiaries or their
children and in fact will have dire consequences for people and their
families. I/We do not believe that
sanctions should be used in any case.
People do the best they can with what they can, and they may sometimes
require support – not the suspension of their livelihood.
Sanctions for Warrant to Arrest
New section 75B allows
for somebody's benefit to be stopped if they have a warrant for arrest that has
been out for 28 days and if they have not followed up with the police within
ten days after being notified by Work and Income. Sole parents will have their benefits halved.
Submission:
I disagree with the addition of 75B. The
courts and police have already issued an arrest warrant and this can be
followed up by those agencies. Making a person and their children deliberately
penniless, and consequently homeless, will not increase safety in New Zealand.
Drug Testing
The amendment of 102A inserts drug
testing obligations into the work test obligations. 102B outlines that beneficiaries are required
to take a drug test if the job they are applying for (or have been told to
apply for) so requires. This section
outlines that the person is taken to have failed the evidential test if they
fail a screening test or waive the test “in any manner”. This phrase “in any
manner” seems wide open to interpretation and abuse by prospective
employers. 102C states that a failed
drug test will be reimbursed by the
Chief Executive (Work and Income) and the cost recovered from the
beneficiary. A failed drug test can be
sanctioned under Section 117 unless the person re-complies under clause 47.
Submission: I disagree with the amendment of 102A which
makes drug testing a work test obligation.
I disagree with the addition of 102B and 102C. The reasons for any heavy beneficiary
recreational drug use—escape from despair, for example—should be considered and
their situation ameliorated by training, appropriate health services and job
creation. These additions will just work
to cut benefit payments and beneficiary numbers but will not do anything to
alter the fact that there are not enough jobs.
Further, this amendment and these additions work to stigmatise
beneficiaries as drug takers. We need
increased drug and alcohol rehabilitation and treatment facilities for those
who have real issues with addiction and job creation for those who do not.
