Scrap over benefit sanctions
Like estranged parents, the Government and Opposition are at odds over whether benefit sanctions work, and as usual it is the children stuck in the middle.
The new Government plans to scrap sanctions for sole parent beneficiaries who don’t name their child’s other parent. It has also suggested it would do away with other benefit sanctions.
It said the punitive approach did not work, and a Ministry of Social Development report from 2016 was inconclusive, saying: ‘‘We do not have sufficient evidence to confirm if the benefit reduction is achieving the policy’s intent.’’
Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni said it was the children missing out when their parent was sanctioned.
As of March last year, 13,616 sole parent families receiving a benefit (17.7 per cent) were affected by the policy, which carved $22 a week off their benefit for each child they refused to name the other parent for. After 13 weeks, a further $6 is deducted.
But National Party social development spokesperson Louise Upston said every child had a right to know their wha¯ nau and their wider whakapapa, and have a strong sense of identity.
Removing the sanction would mean fewer sole parents would name the other parent, taking away some children’s right to that family connection. Some parents already tried to avoid their child support responsibilities and this move would see more shirking their duty, Upston said.
On Thursday, Upston questioned Minister for Children Tracey Martin on whether she believed a child had the right to know and be connected to their parents. ‘‘It’s generally accepted that every human being has the right to know their whakapapa,’’ Martin responded.
She went on to say there were some instances where there should be government policies in place that protected the child, and it wasn’t always in their best interests to know their family.
‘‘The Government will always consider what is in the best interests of the child,’’ Martin said.
The Minister for Children did not explicitly say whether she, and NZ First - a party with strong family values - supported the move to repeal sanctions. However, she did say the Government did not believe it was appropriate to penalise the child’s family by taking away financial support.
Upston said the Government’s plan to repeal sanctions weakened those children’s opportunity to know, and have a relationship, with both parents.
Under Section 70A of the Social Security Act, a sole parent receiving a benefit can be sanctioned for refusing to name the remaining parent. In 98 per cent of cases that is the father. But there are significant exemptions.
The exemptions include cases where the other parent cannot be named because there’s insufficient evidence, where the child or sole parent could be at risk of violence, where the child was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation, where the sole parent was actively trying to identify the other parent, or where there was another ‘‘compelling circumstance’’.
Before the election, the nowSocial Development Minister said the administration of this sanction had been ‘‘patchy and unfair’’.
Almost 98 per cent of people sanctioned were women, and 52.8 per cent were Ma¯ ori, she said.
‘‘The law isn’t working as intended, and it’s hurting people.’’
The United Nations also received a submission on this sanction, with the submitters saying it was discriminatory towards women.
And there was evidence from Britain that such sanctions could make matters worse for beneficiaries. Oxford University found that as the rate of sanctioning increased within local authorities, the rate of foodbank use also increased, suggesting families were struggling without the extra payment and had to turn to other agencies for help.
Another study found ‘‘very limited’’ evidence sanctions encouraged people into paid work. Instead, they caused anxiety, ill health and feelings of disempowerment.