Benefit sanctions affecting Waikato children
Single parents are increasingly having their benefit penalised up to $28 a week per child, all because they refuse to name the other parent.
The number of Waikato children subject to the benefit sanction – some 1700 as of March – has grown to the second-highest in the country in the past three years. Auckland tops the penalty list – 6612 children are affected there. Bay of Plenty is third on 1674.
The Green Party says the government is using poverty as a threat, but the government says the longstanding law encourages the other parent to take financial responsibility.
However, numbers show the government’s strategy isn’t working. While nationally there was a decline of 200 children from 2015 to 2017, the number of single-parent beneficiaries dropped by more than 8000 during the same period.
Nationally, one in five solo parents on the benefit has seen their weekly benefit cut.
In the Waikato, an increasing number of single parents are failing to name the other parent, rising from 1177 in March 2015 to 1351 in March 2017. That’s despite the total number of solo-parent beneficiaries declining about 300.
Work and Income reduces the Sole Parent Support benefit by $22 a week for each child if the parent fails to identify the other parent. Staff can apply discretion if there are compelling circumstances, such as a risk of violence.
An extra $6 a week is taken if the name isn’t provided after 13 weeks.
Ministry of Social Development figures show 1699 children in the Waikato were subjected to the sanction as of March 2017.
Nationally, 17,700 children and 14,000 parents are being penalised. That’s a fifth of the 62,000 parents on the single parent benefit.
Children are going hungry because of the sanctions, said Hamilton St Vincent de Paul general manager Mike Rolton.
‘‘Last calendar year we provided 76,000 school lunches to 31 schools in Hamilton … this year we’re on target to do 96,000.
‘‘Five dollars a week is a fortune to a lot of those people. To lose that much money, something has to give at the other end.
‘‘It seems a strange way, in genuine cases, to achieve what they’re trying to achieve. From our perspective, children are the top priority.’’
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei announced on Sunday that removing benefit sanctions was a pillar of the party’s $1.4 billion welfare package.
‘‘This is clearly not working because so many women are not complying.
‘‘From the Government’s point of view, it reduces the cost of welfare, and they can say they’re being tough on beneficiaries. All they’re being tough on is the very poorest families and the very poorest kids.’’
Turei herself received a sanction for failing to name the father of her daughter when on the benefit in the early 90s.
Mothers do not choose to reduce this payment for frivolous reasons, she said.
In her own experience, it was to relieve pressure in the relationship with her daughter’s father.
‘‘This particular sanction assumes that women on a benefit are swapping dependence on the father of their children for dependence on the state.
‘‘That is a very 1950s sexist assumption about women’s financial independence and their right to make decisions for themselves.’’
Minister of Social Development Anne Tolley was unavailable for comment. Her office referred to a statement made in Parliament in June, saying there was no intention to change the sanctions.