A ‘seriously low bar’

Husband-and-wife comedians and commentators Jeremy Elwood and Michele A’Court share their views.

Another week, another story about Work and Income NZ. This time it was a solo mother of three who was told her benefit had been cut after she admitted going on two Tinder dates. The dates themselves weren’t the issue, but the fact that the man she went on them with had paid for her dinner and movie ticket was. That constituted, she was told, a dependent relationship and she could rely on this chap for financial support.

She has received an apology from the Ministry of Social Development, which also claimed that there was more to the story and that her case manager was mistaken when she told her the reasons for her benefit being stopped, but it’s still a confusing story.

What constitutes a dependent relationship? Surely it’s more than having someone offer to pick up the bill on your second date, right? And why should having someone willing to take you out every now and again affect a benefit you’re receiving anyway?

I know there will be many reading this and thinking: “Well, she’s on a benefit and has young kids, she shouldn’t be wasting her money on dinner dates.” Firstly, she obviously isn’t, her date is – although she did offer to pay her own way. Secondly, I hate that kind of thinking. It crops up whenever any beneficiary is pictured in a news story; some eagle-eyed viewer will point out the Sky remote or pile of DVDs that the person pictured is obviously scamming the system to be able to afford.

There are three things I’d like to point out to deflate that argument. One, not everyone on a benefit has been there forever. In the specific case mentioned here, the woman has only been receiving hers since January. My point being, those “luxuries” you’re pointing out may have been purchased when the purchaser was in a better financial situation.

Secondly, why shouldn’t someone on a low income have the occasional luxury or, in this case, night out? The people who complain about them are likely the same people who rack up expense account lunches, or at the very least keep their receipts for anything remotely tax-deductible at the end of the year.

Finally, underlying this thought process is often the lingering belief that people on benefits want to be there. In almost every case, this isn’t true. There is a stigma to receiving the dole, and for most of those who are forced to, it comes packaged up with a dose of shame and stress. To add to that burden by being rude, looking down at them, or giving them a hard time about going on a date, is beneath us.

So it was untangled eventually – though I can tell you, any day you think you can’t feed your kids is a day too long. MSD apologised, yes, but for its initial explanation. It didn’t cut her benefit because she went on two dates (though it is true she went on two dates). The ministry cut it because it was investigating her for living with a partner (which would have made those dates awkward) and for standing WINZ up at two meetings she says she didn’t know anything about.

First thought is that maybe WINZ should develop some kind of app for arranging their hook-ups. A “swipe right if you can come in on Tuesday” kind of thing. Call it “Winzer” maybe? (Too imperial?)

Secondly, I am intrigued by the logic of her case manager: that if a person buys you dinner maybe twice and also a movie, you are a) in a dependent relationship; and therefore b) you can then rely on them financially.

Which would mean a) I am in a shedload of dependent relationships with all kinds of friends and corporate clients.

I’ll pick up a tab when I’m flush, and my mates return the favour when they’ve had a good run. None of us suddenly expects the other to also chip in for the kids’ shoes. Dinner just means dinner. And a kiss is not a contract – I’m just generally affectionate.

Also, b) it is a terrible idea to rely on anyone financially other than yourself. That’s the whole reason the DPB was invented – so women could leave bad relationships without depriving their kids.

What this really indicates is that WINZ is focused, not on providing support till someone gets on their own independent feet, but in offloading anyone who needs support to someone else as fast as they can – in this instance, a man she’d met twice who had shown a little kindness. WINZ playing Victorian stepmother, insisting first on sacrifice and celibacy, then marrying you off to the first gentleman caller.

That’s a strange message to give to women. We usually offer: “Don’t throw yourself into a relationship with someone you barely know.” But here it sounds remarkably like: “You met a man! He will save you!” With a growled undertone of: “You’re someone else’s responsibility now.” It’s also a very strange message to give men who might like to see a movie with a nice lady. This week, The Avengers; next week, rent.

Granted, “two dates equals commitment” is not the official policy of WINZ, but it’s remarkable that someone who works there feels confident about defining a relationship this way. That’s a seriously low bar. You wouldn’t want to drop your kerchief near that case manager, or you might end up betrothed.