Working-Welfare-Group-Long-Term Benefit-Dependency-The-Issues-Online-Submissions by fanzhongqing

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 360

									Spreadsheet of Online Submissions to the Welfare Working Group Issues Paper
What do you think the goals or objectives of the benefit system should be?

Open-Ended Response
To help out any New Zealander unable to support themselves, preferably temporarily, for a range of reasons.

To have a security sense of living.

To support those who are unable to gain employment with a liveable wage.
To support people in times of need and to enable them to continue to participate in society in all areas.

Promote postivie behaviour for the betterment of families, children and individuals. Eg, instead of DPB benefit, also have a
Marriage Benefit where there is an incentive to get married and raise your child together as husband and wife - support this
instead of supporting mothers to be apart from their partners Pay a benefit for individuals to get married and raise their
children (if the situation is right for both partners). Not be an incentive to NOT get married as many young women find it
better to be on the DPB then marry and receive nothing to raising their child. Should be empowering individuals to want to
aspire and achieve more in life The system should not reward individuals with longterm behaviour that put them on the
benefit to begin with and they have remained there for too long eg., dpb - 1st child and the mother is still receiving the dpb
for their 4th child!
Safety net for all in a time of need ideally never, short term and at worst long term. Some people are never going to be
able to work fully or even part time due to some sort 'disability' sickness or criminal conviction. Some criminals do reform,
but others simply won't and are too dangerous - thus a great liability to any person or business and therefore providing the
benefit is best.

The benefit system should provide security for those who are not able-bodied and genuinely cannot support themselves,
but in a way that encourages contribution to their level of capability. And for those who are able-bodied, welfare should be
temporary, providing a hand up to work, independence and a better future.
(1)	he benefit system is a key component in NZ’s social security system, which rests on five tenets: Full Employment →
Adequate Income → Affordable Housing → High Quality Health Care → Accessible Education (2)	he benefit system fits
within this social security system as a safety net to provide adequate (living) income and relevant support in a dignified
manner to those that need it because of hardships experienced due to personal, social or labour market circumstances
a.For a citizen who is unable to find employment for longer than a short period of time, the welfare system is designed to
ensure that he or she is able to access adequate income (and, if necessary, assistance in finding employment) to maintain a
dignified life until employment can be regained b.While paid employment is recognized as a key outcome for many
benefit recipients, it must be acknowledged that it may not always be the most appropriate outcome for all people, all of
the time: illness, disability, retraining or caring duties may mean a person is in need of state assistance, but not necessarily
needing to be placed in work. As such, getting benefit recipients into paid employment will not always be appropriate the
appropriate outcome c.Benefit levels should ensure that no citizen, and especially no child, should experience poverty
because they, or their parents are receiving a benefit (3)For those people on a benefit for whom employment is the most
appropriate outcome, the system should be set up to facilitate their movement into a meaningful job or when this is not
possible, into training of real quality.

My main concern is in relation to the Domestic Purpose Benefit. Other benefits are designed for specific needs of
individuals within the community. I consider the goals and objectives of the other benefits should ensure the individual is
provided with a benefit that will enable them to participate within their community, which includes employment to a level
appropriate for their level of disability or sickness. The goal and objective for any recipient of a Domestic Purpose Benefit
should be returned to the original purpose of the benefit. It was originally designed to assist those who for some reason
were by themselves bringing up a child who met unforeseen circumstances and were unable to support their child/children
for a specific period. The idea it is a lifestyle choice is absolutely deplorable to me considering my own past circumstances
as a working solo parent after my very abusive marriage ended. Also there should be no other adult living within that
household whether they provide financial support from employment or benefit. This would also assist in eliminating child
abuse. In other words it should only be paid to SOLE PARENTS not Sole parents with a live in partner/ spouse as has
become acceptable. There should be a time limit of maybe one year and that is the end of society's responsibilty towards
that person. I also consider the Domestic Purpose Benefit should be designed to make the recipient personally more
responsible and accountable for their own actions. Under the age of 18 I consider the parents of the individual should be
totally responsible for their childs predicament not society. There should also be a goal/objective to support but not
overindulge or be over generous with providing additional assistance to any beneficiary to the extent where they are
financially better off than some working parents with children. If the beneficiary is not receiving enough money through
their benefit they may realise that they would be better off to find employment.
To ensure that all NZers can live iwth a reasonable degree of dignity and ability to participate in society

NOTE - I have also emailed a copy of my answers to the ips, if that also arrives, please regard it as a duplicate of this
submission {M.Rutland}. Society should have an expectation that all the individual members are responsible for their own
welfare and the welfare of their dependents, and that they should make a contribution to society. The purpose of a benefit
system should be to provide assistance to those members of society who are unable to fulfil those responsibilities due to a
lack of money.
To ensure that all New Zealanders, regardless of their financial, social or economic circumstances, have a standard of living
free from poverty and marginalisation. In particular, the New Zealand government is obligated under the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child to ensure: 1. The right of all children to receive social security, including social insurance, and the
state shall take all necessary measures to ensure the realisation of this right (Article 26.1) 2. The right of all children to a
standard of living adequate for their physical, mental, social, moral and spiritual development (Art 27.1) 3. Provision of
assistance to parents and caregivers to realise the child's right under Art 27.1, including where applicable provision of
material assistance and support programmes, particularly in respect of clothing, housing and nutrition (Art 27.3).

The benefit system through the provision of universal benefits, ought to provide income protection, benefits that are
adequate and universal and prevent and alleviate poverty for people during unexpected life contingencies or events such as
unemployment, sickness, injury or for other significant social and economic reasons as well as in old age. A strong social
security system is essential to absorb the effects of economic crises and provide protection to vulnerable New Zealand
workers who have been adversely affected by the global economic crisis or adversely affected by any crisis or shock. In the
long run, strong systems of social security act as an automatic stabiliser that help a country adjust to and recover from an
economic a crisis. An essential part of the benefit system is to provide long term support and financial income for those
who are unable to work because of long-term incapacity and a physical or mental inability to work. The benefit system
must have a strong relationship with the Work and Income system, the Labour Department and other employment services
to ensure workers and beneficiaries are supported to access good work and employment. As well as providing security to
those who are unemployed or who are in danger of becoming unemployed, a reliable and strong social security system
provides those who are in work and who may have no reason to doubt the security of their work, with the security that
comes from knowing that if they were to face contingencies, their immediate needs would be covered. This assurance is
provided to every New Zealander.
To ensure that the weak and vulverable are porpoerly cared for by our society, whether it be short-term emergencor in the
long-term for many disabled.

To empower and assist people to upskill , to provide income as needed in the interim
To support those who are sick, ill, elderly or who have dependent children to live with dignity and to be able to sustain a
standard of living that allows them the civil and political rights associated with a modern democracy.

The goals of the benefit system should be to reflect the values of the society from which they are developed. In the case of
a country such as ours I would submit that those objectives should reflect our desire to be measured by the way in which
we treat our most vulnerable citizens. That we are seen to come from compassion and a recognition that all of us are, at
some time, vulnerable and in need of the care and protection of the state. In particular, the benefit system - or the welfare
system - should always ask "how will this affect the children?"
- Provide an adequate living income for all those in society who, on account of ill health, accident etc,are through no fault
of their own clearly unable to work for their own upkeep; - Provide clearly focused support, encourgement and the
nescessary skills or transition training and/or information to assist those made vulnerable within society - whether by
tragedy, natural disaster, business collapse - back into satisfying and worthwhile work involvement; -To make available to
all members of society regardless of ethnicity, and to all groups within society of working age, an adequate payment in lieu
of earned and contributive wage/salary while each is assisted to find appropriate employment; - To ensure that no N
Zealander is left without the dignity of work when it is availalble and suitable to meet their needs - both personal and in
regards to child rearing and family responsibilities.

Help with the cost of living when need a benefit but also help to come off a benefit (e g training, transport) Understanding
that some people will need to come off a benefit gradually or they will become too stressed. Understanding that some
people will not know how to go about getting training, getting employable ( e g have lost their confidence)
The Benefit System is an essential safety net for New Zealanders to help them in times of need. The benefit system
protects vulnerable New Zealanders from abject poverty, and also protects all New Zealanders from the effects of abject
poverty these effects being crime especially theft, as well as poor health education and housing, homelessness, gangs and
all the things we associate with "third world" nations. We believe the goals of the benefit system should be to ensure all
New Zealanders have adequate income, access to safe warm dry housing, access to education, and the resources to
participate in their community. Basically the purpose as set out in the 1938 Social Security Act
The main goal of the New Zealand benefit system should be to support those in need and to prevent poverty and hardship
amongst individuals, families and communities. As indicated in the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Security, benefit
coverage should be offered irrespective of cause wherever need exists and should enable a standard of living consistent
with human dignity and shuld enable benefit recipients to fully particulate in society.

I think that the Aims of the Benefit System are still relevant
To maintain an economic, social and cultural "bridge" for people to participate meaningfully in society at times and stages
of life need; Inclusive of; (A) Consideration of integrated assistive management systems that support ordinary
(predicable)life needs that include consideration for the positive social and economic reinforcement both of the community
and individual needs with a minium of harmful deprivation possible; **childhood; (economic & educational ),
**parenting; ( facilitating employment and social services to achieve work/life balance,both social and economic for
parents and cargivers) The expectation of universal participation in paid employment as a primary means of individual
economic survival comes with (hitherto ignored) social responsibilities for employers and business leaders to do their part
in providing the resource of meaningful employement at living wage rates, and a need to reform the employment
environment with a similar level of reforms proposed for distribution of welfare, that reflect the rights of community and
personal caregiving duties and family responsibilities, and meets the needs of people who have disabilities or have to take
time out for sickness or family crisis. There should be the right incuded to also take time out for "mental health" reasons,
rather than have to justify every second away from th workplace by being forced to obtain excessive documentation for
minor absenses. ( less than 48hrs) with a right to arrange with an employer to do so. People are not "machines". (humour)
(But that said machines also need time out, maintainence and care. They don't exactly ring the boss for notice when they
take time out either. My bike does not work well if I don't replace the tyres or oil it once in a while. So we are really asking
for similar rights to machines. So even if an employer does not personally view workers as human for some reason they still
don't get to wriggle out on the obligation of duty of care.) The utilitarian argument falls down on all fronts under even brief
examination. **old age, (ensuring as much as possible, economic and social wellbeing for retirement). (B) To meet the
extra needs of people experiencing the effects of disadvantage, at a level of economic and social support that will facilitate
their personal ability to to overcome as much of that disadvantage as possible. There is no full participation without
integration. .
Equality and dignity for all.
To support people who cannot participate in the labour market, either permanently or temporarily, such that they may
participate in society/their communities with dignity.

To support those people who through no fault of their own are unable to be gainfully employed. This may be for a short
term or for life, depending on the circumstances.

It is very important that we have a society where there are not people living in poverty. New Zealand leads the world in the
Global Peace Index, and in being one of the most generous countries in the world, and yet we have a society where the gap
between the rich and the poor is growing at one of the highest rates in the world. This is something we need to be
ashamed of. Therefore the goals and objectives of the benefit system should be that EVERYONE in New Zealand should
have a decent standard of living.
Social security when no work is available or in adversity.

Provide a decent standard of living for those who cannot work due to sickness or disability or people like artists, musicians
who wish to devote themselves to artforms and have a minimal standard of living. Some members of the public are at the
bottom of the heap and are vulnerable to government policies which make these workers the first fired and last hired. In
NZ we have a big divide between rich and poor which comes about as a result of government policy. We must provide for
children living in poor families and people who because of low minimum wage can not survive without help. This means
that some people are better off on welfare than an a low minimum wage.
To make provision for those who cannot provide for themselves for reasons such as illness, infirmity, unemployment or
their commitments to the care of dependent children or dependent adults. I support the goals of the goals as stated in the
much acclaimed 1972 Royal Commission on Social Policy which recommended that those on benefits should be able to live
at a similar standard to others in the community and should continue to feel that they can participate and belong to their

Prompt and ungrudging provision of assistance to people in need.

To enable all NZer's to have a reasonable standard of living where all can belong and participate.

To ensure that chidren born into disadvantaged circumstances have access to the same opportunities that more
advantaged children receive in our society.
To provide support for people who are out of work or unwell. If out of work the benefit should continue until such time as
the person has either found a job or has accepted retraining into another job area. There should be an expectation that
people will move to where a job is available. If unwell, the health issues need to be addressed with the expectation of
compliance with treatment. If drug addicts refuse treatment then there should be no entitlement to a benefit. "Common
health problems" (Section 5.1) should not be accepted as a justification for long term benefits. The overall focus must be
on rehabilitation in line with the model used by ACC.

To give aid/help to those who really need and deserve it.
KINDLY and COMPASSIONATELY support people in needs so that they can find their equal place in society and a meaning to
their life.

To support those who cannot work.

Protect the most vulnerable people in society at the time that they need it the most A bridge to economic independence,
not a bridge to dependence on the state

To protect people from hardship arising from sickness,disability ,unemployment,oldage, caring for others-the initial vision
relating to the 1938 act says it well
To help those who legitimately need help to maintain an acceptable standard of living. I therefore see roles in determining
what is an acceptable standard of living, what is legitimate help, and in giving the required assistance for the time it is
required. Social circumstances, housing, education, childcare, wellness, etc. need to addressed by a number of agencies at
the earliest possible opportunities, eg, the 'Early Start' programme, and a lot more emphasis needs to be put in such areas
in order to have more positive effects on individuals over time so that they learn responsibilty.

Providing a safety net for those who find themselves between jobs or unable to work.
It should be a safety net, there for the temporary relief of people currently unable to work, or on a more permanent basis
only for people who find themselves permanently incapable of working.

short, term time regulated,moving beneficiaries back into work . Strict monitoring of fraud and double dipping welfare
The benefit system should be one where those who cannot find work, have broken relationships, find themselves alone
with a child or children, cannot cope in the big wide world for whatever reason, are sick or invalided, etc can receive state
help to allow them to live in a house, put food on their table, clothe themselves and their family, educate their children,
participate in community activities, feel safe and feel valued. It should also provide positive, affordable, and accessible
assistance to enable beneficiaries to upskill and/or retrain people - AT ALL LEVELS OF EDUCATION - so that they are better
equipped to find a job that will allow them to step up off the welfare system and provide for themselves. The benefit
system should be one that builds people up not break them down and make them feel worthless pieces of scum that you
would scrape off the bottom of your shoe. Some of the goals and objectives of the Welfare System should then be to:-
  P                                                                                                              P
•	rovide a realistic level of financial assistance so that individuals and families can live, not just subsist. •	rovide access to
                                           P                                           P
affordable, healthy and safe housing. •	rovide affordable access to healthcare. •	rovide positive, affordable, and
accessible assistance to ALL LEVELS of education so that they can be better equipped to find a job. •	rovide access to
programmes that will enhance individual and family life skills, such as assertiveness training, positive parenting, basic
literacy and numeracy courses, budgeting, cooking skills, healthy living (holistic view, e.g mind and body) courses, etc ...
PLUS provide the cost of transport and childcare to enable beneficiaries to attend these courses. •	rovide expert help and
advice in job seeking – not just paying lip-service to it and the people providing the service should be well trained and
knowledgeable about the jobs advertised and being able to match the job seeker with the appropriate job and also have
some basic skills in dealing with often very stressed and defensive people. Welfare assistance is not just about providing
financial help to those in need. It is about the PEOPLE who are in need and those people need to feel that there is a positive
way out of their situation, not be punished because they are in need and require help from the state.

To provide support to all New Zealanders at times of need, enabling them to take steps to help themselves in ways that
support their individual situation.

To assist, house and clothe people when they're out of work and to assist them in either finding work and/or training.
People should not be forced from their homes that they've bought due to circumstances beyond their control.

preventing poverty and its associated health effects. Providing all citizens with the means for a dignified - not just
subsistence - standard of living.
It should be to provide a safety net to those unfortunate enough to lose their job and to take a leading role in the
(re)training of people so they can get back in the workforce for those who can. This should be a dignified process so that
individuals are not stigmatized and demoralized.

A liveable basic income and social support for those that cannot earn a living income because of A. lack of employment
opportunities B. Age C. Illnes/incapacity

Provide a support network and funds for people who are temporarily out of work or unable to work for other reasons. It
SHOULD NOT be to force people to hunt for jobs and get minimum wage jobs they are overqualified for/etc and SHOULD
NOT be used to threaten the people who are on the benefit.
1. To ensure people are financially supported to a level that will enable them to fully participate in society in the event that
they cannot support themselves due to a) Becoming unemployed and unable to find work b) Being the sole carer of
children or other dependents c) Sickness or disability 2. To assist people in these situations to work towards finding
stable, high quality, long term employment on a case by case basis ie. when they are physically and practically able to. This
can be accomplished by putting a far greater emphasis on training and providing opportunities for job experience.
In a civilised society the benefit system is a safety net, bad things happen to good people and they need a hand-up to get
back to work, it's to support those who cannot support themselves.

To create jobs, you know like the ones the government just cut recently. The ones they labled beauracratic. We need
tangible jobs. If we have them then there is no need for a welfare working group. Simple really.

To provide financial baseline for people when they are no longer able to have fulltime employment - either thru
unemployment, sickness or disability. In particular children of those persons need to continue to have access to health care,
education and proper food.

To provide support to those in need when in need.

The goals should be to provide adequate financial assistance at a level that does not penalise people for being
unemployed,sick a sole parent or elderly.It should be enough for people to maintain their health or recovery from sickness
and should allow them to continue to be involved in moderate social activities so they are not excluded from the
community.Along with this they should train those needing upskilling and provide medical assistance that will allow the sick
to become well again.
To ensure that those who are unable to work through permanent illness or disability, parenting responsibilities, or loss of
job, have an income to provide adequately for the basic needs of themselves and their dependents, and to participate fully
in their community. When the country is in recession, or a large company closes, eg meat works, Fisher and Paykel in
Mosgiel, then unemployment becomes a strutural problem and individuals cannot be blamed for having to receive a
benefit. For most people receiving a benefit it is not long term. Even solo parents only stay on the benefit for a couple of
years. The benefit system should allow those who have lost a job or who have been out of the workforce sometime due to
family responsibilities or serious injury or ill health, to retrain. This requires support for clothing and transport.

To support those in need, who through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to be part of and contribute to the
common goals of society; and who are unable to support themselves and their families for a period because of changes in
the economic order, or personal misfortune, or because they are part of the community which is disadvantaged because of
the the structure and nature of that society.

A system which provides permanent provision for a very basic living-standard for those who genuinely need it but only for
as long as that need lasts. TEMPORARY assistance for those requiring assistance to provide for themselves. The AIM should
be to induce the principle that every person is responsible for their own actions and liveliehood.
1. No New Zealand Citizen should through circumstances beyond their control be hungry or lack for shelter 2. No New
Zealand Citizen should because of accidental pregnancy be forced to give that first accidental child into adoptive care. 3.
State funded housing should be made available for emergency housing on a temporary basis until private rental
accomodation has been found. With the generous provision of food and housing from the taxpayer comes an
understanding of responsibility by the benificiary. This understanding must be spread through the media in the same way
that anti speed or anti drink drive campaigns are run. The benificiary must replace the prevailing feeling of entitlement to
one of warm gratitude. This gratitude must manifest in strict adherance to some simple rules. The failure to follow these
rules would demonstrate a lack of need for the funding so freely offered.

Get beneficiaries into work that has good wages that can support themselves and families sufficiently. Support and provide
opportunities for beneficiaries to up-skill and become qualified to make them more employable. Support those that have
no choice but to be on benefits. Not discriminate one beneficiary over another.
To provide an income and sustenance for those who are unable to earn a living.

I feel that there should be an age restriction on who should be able to receive a benefit. Any one under the age of 19
should not be eligible. They should be encouraged to remain at school or attend Polytechnics or University. IT IS TOO
EASY TO GO ONTO A BENEFIT - if it was not available and known to be not available then hopefully young people would
move on to Polytechnics or University for further education. It seems to me that the young unemployed roaming around
the streets during the daytime are extremely imature.       The DPB when it was introduced was not done so for young single
girls to have babies. I was on DPB once with four children I went back to school after leaving at 15 with no qualifications. I
attended a married woman's retraining course and sat and passed SC English and typing. I also attended High School as an
adult and gained UE accreditation. I have attended night school and gained level two computer studies. There was no pill
in my day. Today there are so many contraceptives available these young girls should not be having babies. Especially not
having two or three. iT IS TOO EASY- we have babies having babies and it is the children who are suffering. I would also
like to suggest that these single mothers while their children are in daycare (I believe that they are) Goodness me they do
Temporary (ie time-limited) assistance to get people back to being self-sufficient.
To offer to those in real need every assistance. To establish clear time parameters on accessibility to benefit support. To
limit no's of qualifying children under the DPB benefit, eg: scale downward payments to parent after first child. Change
method of payment, minimise cash payments and replace with service payments and non tradeable food coupons.

For most it will in normal economic times be a safety net if they loose their job and are unable to work for a period of time.
Or are simply unable to work for a number of reasons. It also needs to be used as a method to enable people to be
educated to become permanently employed or to be re educated for reemployment if the skills they had are now
redundant due to changing technology or a changing economy.

Provide an acceptable standard of living to those who temporarily (in few cases permanently) can not do this for
themselves. There should be an overriding concentration on not only providing basic support but assisting, and requiring,
those getting such support to actively move towards independence.
A benefit system should offer a hand-up, not a hand-out. Self-reliance should be the goal, therefore each benefit --
unemployment, sickness, invalids, DPB -- should require recipients to make the transition to full-time or part-time paid
work according to their abilities, and seek support from their families before looking to the state.

Temporary assistance to help people back on to their feet. Long term assistance only in severe cases of need.

to provide a safetly net and hand up to those who need assistance for a short time and provide a means to live for those
who through disability cannot work and provide for themselves.
The most important goal of a benefit system is to alleviate poverty, whether this is best achieved by providing financial
assistance, or supporting individuals into the workforce depends on individual situations.

to ensure all people, in New Zealand have good housing, food, clothing, can acces health services and employent

Goals - To provide short term assistance (6mths) and to assist by way of training through voluntary schemes. Assist people
that haven't been able to find work - to investigate alternative opportunities in the workforce in areas they may have not
previously considered.
 A                                                                                                           H
•	 ssistance for anyone of us who could need welfare due to ill health, job loss or change of circumstances •	 elp children
born into poverty who face significantly reduced opportunities which invariably affect their future •	ooking after the
                            W                             W
vulnerable in our society •	 ith rights come obligations •	 e all have an investment in welfare

- To support people in need - To value people as assets - To empower people to contribute to their community on the
basis of their talents, strengths skills and values.
A benefit to those in need, taking into consideration the individual work ready capability, assets,work experience and
qualifications. Any individual who can answer in the affirmative or positive to the basic four questions is not eligible for a

Support genuine need and not create reliance . Signs of long term reliance should be identified quickly and managed
appropriately. There exists a huge void between long term unemployment and working regularly. The benefit system has
very few similarities with having a paid job. I would like to see a benefit system more in line with the realities of having a
working job with some similar obligations that go with employment . Successful employment requires honesty ,integrity
,reliability and commitment. Being on a benefit should foster similar attributes so the transition from unemployment to
employment can be successful. The stigma of unemployment is destructive and we need to destigmatise unemployment.

To provide a basic income for the DESERVING i.e. instead of basing entitlement upon circumstances alone it should be
based upon wether the person is blameless (didn't lose their job through their own conduct, deserted partner or genuine
victim of family violence, genuinely incapacitated through circumstances beyond own control, prepared to undertake
counselling, rehabilitation, retraining or other necessary self care steps towards work readiness). Recipients to be people of
good character - criteria to be determined by the introduction of a Code of Social & Family Responsibility as proposed by
the Shipley government but scrapped. To empower and actively assist able bodied beneficiaries into work using all means
at WINZ's disposal, including helping to address childcare deficiencies and other genuine barriers that may affect some
To ensure that everyone has the same basic standard of living: 1. Keep a roof over their head (needs to be a safe and warm
home) 2. Keep the electricity, gas, water on (be able to afford to heat their house,cook meals). 3. Be able to feed your
family healthy nutritious meals (why is it cheaper to buy crap than healthy food?) 4. Be able to clothe your family and your
kids. 5. Ensure that everyone has access to education and training without penalty to income and the basics above. 6. To
ensure that people can earn a decent wage for reasonable hours to afford the above. Our current benefit system is
unrealistic and doesn't attend to even these needs, just ask any case worker how many people are long term on temporary
additional support because the basic benefit doesn't reflect today's true costs.

To allow everyone to live above the poverty line, and maintain the health of the population. To protecy society from the
crime and violence associated with poverty. To minimise the social costs of the erratic economy. To redistribute wealth
that has become dramatically more unevenly distributed since the de-regulation of the ecomomy. To allow all children to
participate fully in education and develop their talents and potential. To care for people who are unable to support
themselves- particularly children. To allow people parenting alone to intensively parent their children- staying home with
them when young, if they choose.
Support for those who cannot work The principles in the document are fine but in my view put insufficient emphasis on the
responsibility of the rest of the community for the most vulnerable in the community. Working should be identified as a
good in itself. There are many people in our community who currently would not get work in the open market but would
benefit from a form of "sheltered" work, where the employer is given some subsidy to provide mentorship and support to
new workers and to acknowledge their initial decreased productivity. There are some with significant disability who will
never be able to get work in the open market. We need more flexibility to provide "work as therapy"

To support people when they need it but for a limited period.
1. Provide for those in the community who need it the most. Those who are not able to work, that is are the most
vulnerable; 2. Assist those who are able to work, being on an unemployed benefit to re-enter into the workforce either in
the capacity as self employed, business people or employees; 3. Protect the community, care givers and dependents alike
against the legal, violent & mortal consequences of failing to provide for the most vulnerable in our community: e.g. the
chronically mentally ill.
To provide short term support for people facing a temporary change in health or employment status AND to support those
unable to work long term through health and disablement issues.

Assist individuals who cannot find suitable employment, assist those who are unable to work due to illness and assist a solo
parent (male and female) of children under say 12 years who choose not to put their children in care. Help individuals who
have crimnal records to find employment, I believe this is the main barrier to finding employment and long term benefit
What impacts do you see from long-term benefit receipt on individuals, families and whānau, communities and the economy?

Open-Ended Response
I think it can be humiliating and confidence-destroying to individuals, families and whanau and communities, especially with the types
of comments and attitudes expressed in the media. It must breed a range of responses and attitudes in recipients to help withstand
the pressures. The resultant poverty does nothing to enhance the economy but perhaps helps keep the job market competitive,
which the business sector benefits from.

It would be hard to live without a benefit.

A caring society cares for those in genuine need, regardless of the length of time. This questionnaire has an underlying assumption
that long-term benefit receipt is undesirable. Many people on benefits are doing absolutely essential work that the market does not
respect in caring for dependents, for children and for family members with disabilities. Many disabilities are lifelong.
The prejudice they get from people who do bnot understand their circumstances. Getting out of touch with requirements in the
workforce and in their area/s of employment. Being demoralised by the way the system treats them.

social adverse behaviour that becomes generational the impact is more negative then positive particularly in low-socio groups
children becoming too familiar with benefit dependency that it is deemed 'normal' for them to receive it Because young youth get on
the benefit, it becomes a lifestyle for them
They tend to either spiral into social isolation, personal despair and chaos or they become drawn into risky lifestyles - drugs, gangs,
violence, crime. Sadly communities, families in from all segments of society are not as strong nor as close as they were in the pass.
So few community monarchs and unsung leaders of hope for needy persons within the community. Too much imbalance of more
havs and have nots as some families who are income poor, no breadwinner(s), single income but only low, struggle to exist and
become immobilized to do anything for themselves or others, while those who have become income rich two good/reasonable full
time incomes who are too busy for anyone including their own families. When someone has been unemployed or on a benefit
dependent for a longtime they lose confidence, social skills and hope that they may have had in their lives. Even those who have
really tried to change their situation but still remain in low pay, insecurity jobs with poor prospect eventually lose hope and meaning
in life as they can't move on.

Long term benefit dependency for the able-bodied is very destructive at every level: it destroys initative and drive, cripples the future
opportunities of children, encourages family breakdown, fuels intergenerational dependency and the growth of the underclass, and is
an enormous cost burden on society that the country cannot afford.
  L                        P                                            H
•	oss of self-confidence •	overty (based on current benefit levels) •	 eightened risk of child poverty for those children whose parents
are dependent on the benefit (based on current low benefit levels and exclusion from receipt of the In-Work Tax Credit) •	ow average
                     V                                                                                             D
life-time earnings •	 ictimisation and stigmatisation from politicians, the media, and ultimately fellow citizens •	 islocation from
community. It must be noted that some of these outcomes are not so much a result of long-term benefit receipt per se, but rather
inadequate benefit levels.

I am aware of some long term beneficiaries who were on Domestic Purpose Benefit while I was going to work for 30 years and
bringing up my child whose children are now on Domestic Purpose Benefit or Unemployment Benefit because their parents never set
the example of going to work. These woman and their children have very limited social skills with others as they are not interacting
with people other than those on a benefit. They eventually lacked the ability to pursue their dreams and work towards providing a
better life for them and their children.
I should like to add a strong negative impact on democracy to the list above. Long term beneficiaries are unable to hold politicians to
account, and a large number of such beneficiaries results in politicians being largely unaccountable to the taxpayers who keep the
Country running. The impact on the economy is related to the proportion of the population who are receiving benefits. It should be
noted however, that the time when NZ had a low number of beneficiaries was associated with a high per capita income, and the
decline in national wealth has coincided with a rise in the proportion of the population on benefits. The impact on Communities is
generally negative in that long term benefit receipt creates barriers between the recipients and the taxpayers. In addition, there is a
perception that beneficiaries are much more likely to be involved in negative and destructive behavoir such as addiction, vandalism
and crime
The very positive effects from the benefit system that protects and supports people must be recognised. For people who are unable
to work because of stress and illness the benefit system provides income support to assist beneficiaries to meet basic living standards.
The long term effect of high numbers of people in communities on benefits can be devastating to communities and lead to
deprivation and alienation not only of individual but whole communities in some geographical regions. For that reason programmes
that support local communities are an essential response. Helping people transition from benefits into work is not an easy task. A
coercive approach will create backlash and alienation. Beneficiaries will feel that they are being victimised rather than being
As you have listed, the disadvantage of being unable to work and requiring a benefit leads to poorer incomes, less self-esteem and
society missing out on a lot of people with skills.

a spiraling down of internal resourcing, a habitual approach to peoples vision for themselves
(1)There are necessary benefits for those who need to be on the benefit long-term in receiving a benefit in that they receive at least
some of the necessities of life that they would not receive otherwise. (2)The beneficiary is constantly subjected to a critical
examination of their motives for being on the benefit. This is particularly so for sole mothers. That they are on a benefit is difficult
enough for these mothers. That they continue to be subjected to critical examination of their funding and motives simply adds to the
burden they already have to bear. Her distress at this scrutiny and criticism is felt by her family and whanau.

The main impact is that of poverty and social exclusion. This is because present benefit levels are so low that beneficiaries are barely
able to survive let alone participate in society fully. I do not see the answer as lying in "getting people off benefits" but rather in
raising benefits to a livable level and providing training and support for people to enable them to enjoy their live. Long term benefit
receipt seems to be a much over-hyped notion based on inadequate research. I submit that the main impact of being on long term
benefit is poverty. I also submit that the effect on a community it to disempower that community and to create a ghetto type
situation where people feel little hope. I submit that the answer is continued increased benefits, education opportunities and
compassionate support for all.
-individuals without work quckly become isolated and lose the confidence required to put themselves forward or 'sell' their skills let
alone speak of their hopes and determination to become valued employees. It is easy for them to let themselves go, give up meeting
time restraints, move into the slow lane. -families too soon begin to live re-actively, not planning even a near future, but becoming
dependent on what comes to them from else. Initiative and determination are surpassed by pacivity and inactiivity. These can easily
become the tenor of the household. -in the older type state housing areas of 50s and 60s where people of similar ethnicity and
status make up the majority of a community a family with the ambition and drive to help themselves creates waves that are not
always positive. -those trapped in long-term benefit receipt challenge the country's economy and those businesses and employers
who drive it from within. Even in the WWG's own report 5% unemploymnent is assumed as somehow OK. But how can this be? How
is it that under the recently passed 90 day employment trial bill employers are not obliged to give a reason for ceasing employment?
Surely employers and employment are partners in our economy.

People develop habits e g sleeping-in and t v watching that are hard to break. They become physically and mentally sluggish. They are
usually short of money for quality food resulting in poor mental and physical health
We see that long term benefit receipt leads to poverty, to poor health housing and education outcomes and to high levels of stress
for individuals, this is mainly due to the inadequate level at which benefits are paid. We witness the effect that this has on families,
and that entire families suffer the effects of this stress ill health and poor housing, we see that the poverty concentrates beneficiaries
in low income areas with poor housing options infrastructure and services. This can spiral into the creation of a community with very
limited resources and prospects as those people who can afford to live elsewhere migrate away from what they perceive as a problem
area. This often results in poorer education opportunities due to the funding issues faced by lower decile schools, also health issues
as are faced by lower income communities, in fact I understand that parts of our countries with high numbers of beneficiaries are
finding diseases thought to be third world problems are occurring. The impact on the economy is a negative one with increased
secondary and tertiary medical care demand, with increased use of corrections and justice facilities, and with the growth of a
population who are not being given the tools for social mobility.
This is a multi-faceted question which not only lumps all types of benefit recipients together but does not fully account for the fact
that impacts will be different at the individual, family and whanau, community and economy levels. My answer attempts to highlight
some of this complexity by highlighting alternative views of the impacts of such impacts on individuals/families and on the economy:
1. Long-term benefit receipt will have differing impacts on a variety of individuals, categories of individuals and families. For all
benefit recipients, the most significant impact is poverty and the negative influence this will have on their mental and physical health
and on their opportunities to participate in society. For able-bodied individuals who are not caring for children, it is possible long-
term receipt may also contribute to a reduced motivation to seek work in the future, although the evidence on this is somewhat
mixed and it assumes that such individuals are not contributing (such as through volunteer work) in other meaningful ways. For
people with disabilities or ill-health, it is also possible there will be some negative impacts if they are able and keen to work and have
been frustrated by employers unwilling to take challenge of employing them or if they have experienced discrimination in the
workplace. But for some such individuals, long-term benefit receipt may well offer a reliable, stable source of income that minimises
some of the stresses of living with a long-term disability or illness. It may also offer this group a chance to participate in society
(through volunteer work, advocacy) in ways that are not only more manageable (regarding hours, effort) and more meaningful to
themselves and society than unskilled, unpredictable work in the formal labour market might allow in the current context. Finally,
long-term benefit receipt offers many sole parents a chance to do the most important work of all in any society - being there for their
children. In this way, long-term benefit receipt might be seen as valuing the role of parenting and as an investment in children's well-
being. It may also allow families to function in ways that are healthier than working long hours and spending long days in childcare
may allow. 2. Long-term benefit receipt may have a negative impact on the economy in that some people of working age are not in
paid work at a time when there are significant labour shortages. However, we can also see the provision of benefits over the long-
term as also ensuring that consumption amongst those not in the paid workforce continues and that children (who are our future
workers) are cared for, well-educated and healthy. In these ways, we might see long-term receipt as contributing to the continued
Too large a question.
Whilst benefit payments constitute a low income, they are made unnecessarily more difficult to live on because of the deliberate
stigma and culture of "blame" placed on recipients from a high level of administration. We must recognise the history and purpose of
this stigma, which makes little economic or material sense in the current economic conditions; except to those who are motivated to
support exploititive pathways which abuse others for their own ends (eg; some business groups prevalent in real estate, insurance,
and the financial industry), and see the support of mainstream social cultural and economic rights as a threat to their economic
stability. We need to develop a co-operative community, and drive out the motivation for creating deprivation and meanness for
profit. This is currently re-enforced by Political campaigns, which rely on "benefit bashing", and manifests many difficulties including;
creating barriers for many ordinary people in distressed circumstances access to housing, employment, and education, especially
when assurance of these needs is critical, such as in times of high unemployment and in conditions of natural disaster. There is an
economic and social cost to communities and individuals resulting in physical, and psychological damage from unchallenged "hate
speach" on mainstream media. This creates a negative culture of personal "entitlement" to abuse. A connection exists to the
proliferation of domestic exploitation, financial abuse, relationship fraud, aimed almost exclusively at benefit recipients. Family
violence programmes are not designed to offer help to vicitms of random punitive violence and discrimination. We must be wary of
lobby groups that concentrate support of tools that seemingly support detection of welfare fraud, but are mainly used in a way that
re-enforces the formation of exploitative negative cultures of cruelty that target benefit recipients in particular; (including the abuse
of "snitch lines "and "bounties" on "benefit fraud" detection by community groups etc. People need to start being held accountable
for abusing these systems, and compensation/ reconsiliation needs to be looked at for victims. A programme similar to this has been
reinforced into law recently in the UK as a result of calls from sectors of the public, for negative welfare reforms. When combined
with "black PR" propoganda programmes, serveillence "blitzes" favoured by pressure groups and polititions, often result in seducion
of the wider community into rejecting or attracting corruption to programmes that assist people in need. The serveillence
technology culture/industry needs to be examined to protect the public from the arbitory invaision of the workplace serveillence, and
Security for individuals and families. A positive environment.
Some people are going to be permanently on income support through no fault of their own ie people with physical, cognitive or
sensory impairments. If this support is not adequate it will cause irreparable damage to the individuals and families concerned.
Families can be impoverished by the costs of disability. The Invalid benefit should not be means tested, awarded on need and be
generous. The impact of this would be extremely positive on the individual, family/whanau and community insofar as the person with
impairment would be properly supported to participate in his/her community and thereby contribute to creating a diverse, creative
society. I would gladly forego my October tax cut to fund

For carers of severely disabled children and adults who are dependent on the "DPB Caring for Sick and Infirmed" they are destined to
a life of poverty with no possibility to provide for their old age. Some carers have however been grateful to be on the DPB CSI rather
then just the DPB as previously as they have found a change of attitude by the Work and Income staff??

There are a number of impacts from long-term benefit receipt. Some people become dependent. And this is a behaviour consistent
even within families where some family members thrive from the support they receive from their parents, and others squander
opportunities, or become dependent on other family members. Long term benefit receipt results in a whole spectrum of behaviours.
However, we have a responsibility to ensure that those members of our society who are able to contribute have a good start to life.
Those who are unable to contribute for various reasons, need to be supported and protected from the evils of poverty.
All negative. Note that the negative effects on the economy in terms of growth and productivity could be minimised by a welfare
system that focussed on children and families from the time of their birth. The evidence from Sweden and other Nordic countries
support this. In addition, evidence from other European countries such as Greece and Italy shows much weaker economies and a less
generous support for families.

Impacts of long-term benefit creates a demoralised atmosphere and sense of futility amidst those of us at the bottom of the heap;
the poor and disenfranchised. The government is responsible for creating the conditions that result in welfare dependency. The
question above should be what is the consequence of long term poverty? Crime, tax avoidance, doing what is necessary to survive. I
rent rooms in my house to the poor and I see these consequences. Who makes up the poor, I see many highly qualified immigrants,
disabled people and tall poppies black listed and ignored by employers. I have every rejection paper; not ever shortlisted, since 1995.
I applied for jobs I was eminently qualified for but no opportunities presented. Someday I might make a statement on behalf of all of
us immigrants with qualifications relegated to minimum wage jobs. Its a disgrace!
People who are unable to find employment and remain on benefits longterm are often those who live in economically depressed
areas where few jobs are available. The consequences for the individuals concerned would undoubtedly be increasing poverty as
their resources become used up and they find it difficult to access such 'luxuries' as dental treatment. The economy misses out on
their contribution and more effort should be made to offer support and training opportunities - accompanied by appropriate funding
to support return to work when this is appropriate in terms of the beneficiary's health and commitments

Where the long-term assistance is needed, its provision encourages the social inclusion of individuals and strengthens family and
community ties. In terms of the economy, it helps to maintain consumer demand. In other words, long-term provision is not the
issue. National Superannuation, for example, is a benefit and its unconditional unversality has had important effects in keeping
people over 60 out of poverty and levelling out the socio-economic disparities that are the true sources of social, economic and
physical malaise.

Poverty because it is an unlivable amount of income.

Individuals/Family/whanau: Poverty, Inadequate housing, Feeling disempowered, Depression, Drug & alcohol abuse. Communities:
Youth crime - young people see others with things they don't have so they start to steal to get them. The economy: Those on low
incomes spend everything they earn just to survive there is nothing left over to invest or save for retirement.
The scientific literature stresses the importance of paid work for self esteem and mental health. Long-term benefit receipt
disempowers people and creates a whining subculture with a strong sense of entitlement and a lack of personal responsibility.
Children growing up in such families become the next generation of such a subculture. ACC work with a similar group of long-term
ACC claimants found that they could be cajoled back to work and such people even thanked ACC for taking such action.

If we keep going the way we are then the country won't be able to afford it!
If dished out as a band aid, the aid will need to be applied forever. By looking at reasons why people are needing help and not
condemning them, we could better help.

Loss of skills for economic wellbeing for individuals The overinvolvement of the state in the natural relationships that are the centre
of individuals, families, whanau, communities and the economy

The evidence of the negative effects seem to be well established However for some situations where people aren't able to work there
has to be acceptance that they will be longterm beneficiaries
Increased poverty and violence - it's bad enough now! A continuation of irresponsible behaviour and safe options taken by a large
number of beneficiaries who have no incentives to take responsibility for their own lives and often will not know how to do so.

Positive impacts would be: Fewer homeless people on the street as a result of being left with no lifeline. Less stressed family/whanau
relationships from lack of financial pressure. Lower levels of crime, drug use and drinking that can be associated with having no
income. Positive impact on the economy as people are not taking out of circulation as consumers exacerbating recession conditions
when they occur. Negative impacts would be: Higher rates of depression from lack of success finding a job. This may have the
consequence of undoing the benefit of still having an income as regards drug use and drinking. Negative impact on the economy
from reduced tax take due to person being out of work and needing to pay their amount of benefits.
Long-term benefit receipt where it is unnecessary causes the individual to lose mental motivation, and may cause a loss of self-
esteem. For both the family and the individual, it may be the cause of severe poverty as well, although there have been some famous
cases in the past where as much as $1,000 per week was being poured into the household through multiple benefits, which is
undesirable, in my opinion. For descendants of beneficiaries, seeing their parents/grandparents on the benefit could cause second-
generation benefit dependency, or it could motivate them to make an effort to avoid such a lifestyle, depending on the
negative/positive view they receive of benefit dependency. For the community, long-term benefit dependency could mean all of the
above effects, though it could also have a positive effect if the community concerned proved willing to show some type of co-
operative effort to overcome the situation (such as happened in South Auckland recently re ridding the community of 'pokie
machines' to lessen problem gambling), or to cope with it (such as minding each others' children while a neighbour goes actively job-
hunting, for example, or growing a communal vegetable garden to help with food costs). For the economy, excessive long-term
benefit dependency raises taxes unnecessarily, using money that could be put into other areas, such as health - more specifically,
prevention of illness or injury which may be causing some to rely excessively on benefits in the first place.

Loss of self esteem,lethargy. Substance abuse. Paying young women to enter into a career choice,ie having babies---takesyoung
people out of workforce. Perpetuates dependency
The benefit system should be one where those who cannot find work, have broken relationships, find themselves alone with a child or
children, cannot cope in the big wide world for whatever reason, are sick or invalided, etc can receive state help to allow them to live
in a house, put food on their table, clothe themselves and their family, educate their children, participate in community activities, feel
safe and feel valued. It should also provide positive, affordable, and accessible assistance to enable beneficiaries to upskill and/or
retrain people - AT ALL LEVELS OF EDUCATION - so that they are better equipped to find a job that will allow them to step up off the
welfare system and provide for themselves. The benefit system should be one that builds people up not break them down and make
them feel worthless pieces of scum that you would scrape off the bottom of your shoe. Some of the goals and objectives of the
Welfare System should then be to:- •	rovide a realistic level of financial assistance so that individuals and families can live, not just
          P                                                            P                                         P
subsist. •	rovide access to affordable, healthy and safe housing. •	rovide affordable access to healthcare. •	rovide positive,
affordable, and accessible assistance to ALL LEVELS of education so that they can be better equipped to find a job. •	rovide access to
programmes that will enhance individual and family life skills, such as assertiveness training, positive parenting, basic literacy and
numeracy courses, budgeting, cooking skills, healthy living (holistic view, e.g mind and body) courses, etc ... PLUS provide the cost of
transport and childcare to enable beneficiaries to attend these courses. •	rovide expert help and advice in job seeking – not just
paying lip-service to it and the people providing the service should be well trained and knowledgeable about the jobs advertised and
being able to match the job seeker with the appropriate job and also have some basic skills in dealing with often very stressed and
defensive people. Welfare assistance is not just about providing financial help to those in need. It is about the people who are in
need and those people need to feel that there is a way out, not be punished because they are in need and require help from the
state.   Obviously there are many negative impacts of being a benefit recipient on long term welfare, and it depends on the type
of benefit they are in receipt of BUT society, as a whole, has been given permission by the current government to denigrate and
ostracise beneficiaries – to look upon beneficiaries as third rate citizens who offer nothing productive to our society. That attitude
Poverty, lower self esteem, public ridicule, sense of helplessness.

Can cause depression in individuals and add stress to family as they're now having to, at least partially, support the individual.

Long-term beneficiaries are an endictment on the economic system. It makes it painfully obvious that the government and society
seek to benefit only a few, not the many. The individuals concerned become alienated and ostracised by their indignity and media
bashing. The impact on the economy of "long term" beneficiaries is miniscule compared with that of macro-economic policy.
Very few people who are not disabled in some way actually stay on the benefit for longer than a year. For those that do the negative
effects are very large. This needs to be addressed by solving the root cause of the problem - typically poverty and a lack of jobs int he
area they are living.

Poverty, ill health, alienation, and all the other negative impacts of being marginalised, and on a low income.

Long-term benefit users I know are all on the invalids benefit due to injuries/illnesses that make them unsuitable for mainstream
work. Many are looking for other options as they do not believe the benefit is the best option. Others are single parents who are
able to support their family and be with them during the most important years of their lives - once their children are at school these
parents normally get part time jobs to work around their children's schedules. Parents who are there for their children and support
them tend to raise children who go on to contribute to their whanau and communities.
The long-term receipt of accommodation supplement allowed landlords to ask more for accommodation than it's worth, thus
contributing to the housing bubble, the economic downturn and this very issue you're talking about. It's the taxpayer paying off an
investment property, and the person who can't find cheap accommodation it the victim. He gets vilified and his chances of ever
owning a house are zero.

Very high levels of poverty and debt which leads to stress, hopelessness and in some cases suicide or violence.
It prevents them from being homeless and forced to live on the streets, begging & stealing for food. I saves them from suicide
becoming a better alternative.

An equal society. We need a benefit system otherwise we go down the american system of begging in the streets and tipping which
is another for of begging. The fact that there are long term beneficiaries is like in any system, there will always be abuse however you
don't throw the baby out with the bath water. A little analysis will show you inequality creates huge social problems from alcohol and
drug abuse to high crime and imprison rates. Read the book, the spirit level. Facts not ideology. Long term benefit dependency
came from failed 90's right wing policies. Check out the statistics and in your heart you know I'm correct.

Toal poverty. People only get benefit when they have expended any savings, holiday pay etc. Time on benefit means thay cannot
afford dentists, opticians, healthy food,transport, home repairs and all the things working peiople take fro granted. This is how we
create an underclass.

Given that a tiny percentage of people are ever on a benefit 'long-term' I think this is a disingenuous, and leading question.

The impact is because of the low payment of benefits rates people's situation is made worse and they are plunge into poverty and it
further exsaperates their exclusion from paid employment. The economy is only made worse by the lack of meaningful employment
opportuities not beneficaries.
As long as the benefit is insufficient to give families and individuals an adequate income they become locked into poverty. This can
have the effect of creating stress and low self esteem. Furthermore there is a climate in New Zealand that blames and criticises those
on a benefit. Children whose parents are on the benefit are severely disadvantaged and miss out on decent nutrition, school trips,
sports teams and other life experiences. This may cause children to lose their motivation and to feel excluded. The health of adults
and children dependent on a benefit suffer through poor nutrition and poor housing. This means more spending on the health needs
of such families. People on benefits who can manage to own a car generally have an old vehicle which is not well maintained, this
increases the risk of injury in accidents. If the benefit is insufficient for the household needs then adults may become involved in
criminal activity. All these are a cost to the economy but the greatest cost is that those capable of working who on a benefit are not
able to contribute to the economy through working. I do not believe people who are able bodied want to be on a benefit but the
present system locks them into it.

Long-term benefit receipt can stunt individual motivation, and keep recipients at a level of lifestyle which is unsustainable. Having said
that, there are many on benefits who contribute to society in non-monetary ways with volunteer work and so on.

Totally destruction of all self-respect and morality. A monster which is feeding on society and multiplying rapidly such that it will soon
become totally unsupportable.
The DPB is the most dangerous and to a large extent the most necessary benefit. When this lucrative benefit is used as an alternative
to working for a living as any honest individual will admit there are very many whio do, It has a hugely devastating affect on all
communities. The tragic result of this benifit is that kids are paid to be raising kids. These are most often Maori or pacific Island girls
who have focussed from puberty on one day achieving child birth for the dpb. These kids very quickly discover it has its down sides
too. Like needing to be there 24 hours a day while all the friends are running around partying. This leads to offering your family home
up for all the young party people to hang. This inevitably puts baby in the way of harm. This upbringing is the development ground for
90% of all crimes of violence and crimes against property. The dpb is the common denominator in the back ground of the majority of
the prison population. Something must be done.

Long term beneficiaries, in which I mean over 2 years on benefits. Is not very healthy in terms of family, communities and economy.
But I understand the majority of beneficiaries have no choice, given the recent economy. Could be seen as link with crime and
poverty, having an bigger impact than just paying for benefits.
Individuals and families: Bitterness, sense of entitlement, erosion of self-reliance, degradation. Community: Resentment, erosion of
social cohesion. Economy: Waste.

We seem to be creating a welfare dependant society and I beleive we now have generations of families who are on benefit. This is a
sad indicment of our communities.
Highly negative, and unsustainable. Long-term welfare is funding broken families, crime, and future generations of problems. The
hand-outs are only making things worse, by reinforcing an "entitlement" culture.
This depends entirely on the recipient. 1: Those that set out to defraud the system make it a lifestyle and their long term attitude
does not change and they develop a mentality of cheating that becomes ingrained in all aspects of their lives including passing on
the same attitude to their unfortunate offspring. 2: Genuine recipients who try to develop skills but continually fail to acheive success
suffer from loss of self esteem, low moral and ultimately develop a destructive attitude toward family, friends and society. 3: Families
in a large number of cases will suffer from physical and mental abuse bought about by loss of self esteem, more particularly in males
as they see themselves as failed bread winners and this is reflected daily in personal abuse cases bought to our attention by the
media. This sadly does not accurately portray the real extent and actual levels of violence in our society. 4: Community effect; again
similar to personal and family consequence, anti social behaviour, alcoholism and eventually crime. 5: The economy suffers in direct
financial terms as a consequence of the cost to manage and control the results of all of the above. There is also the loss of willingness
by the public to show compassion when it is so evident that a very large % of the recipients clearly are ripping the system and without
that compassion the position is hardly likely to improve.

Long term benefit reciept is a last ditch option for most unless it has become generational and in this case it is a case of being
educated to know nothing different.

People become divorced from the norms of society and effectively 'institutionalised'. Costs to society go way beyond the 'cash' costs
of the benefits but include the opportunity lost from those people which is a personal and societal loss. Being on a benefit should not
be a negative but not actively trying to get off it should be unacceptable.
Long-term dependence wrecks individuals, families, and ultimately, the economy

Poor relationships and behaviour, low educational achievement, increasing illness (including mental illness), and increasing crime.

Some children who grow up in 2nd or 3rd generation unemployment have negative attitudes towards education and employment
and there can be an element of entitlement to 'free money and housing' from some people (very few but it shows the system can be
The longer someone is out of work the harder it becomes to get back into it.

creates an underclass of people who are discriminated against frequently peopl do not receive enough money to live well and
struggle to meet their basic needs and it's very hard to access better options when they don't have adequate money for food,
transport, apppropriate clothing

worthlessness, no incentive - an expectation of an income for life regarded as a right, not a privilidge without contributing to the
economy that helps pay their income.
  M                                                                     C
•	 ost beneficiary clients struggle to provide well for their children •	hildren are being born into beneficiary families that are already
                                                         S                                                          S
having difficulties coping with their existing families •	ome women having more children while on the DPB •	ome women clients
find it is easier to continue to have more children on a benefit, especially if they are short on work skills or not worked in the
                                                      S                                                             C
workforce before having children than find a job •	ome teenage girls regard parenthood as a career option •	hildren in families with
                                                                          P                                                    W
different fathers with only some supporting with raising the child/ren •	arents not getting a birth certificate due to cost •	 omen not
naming the father on the birth certificate, so the father does not pay child support •	lients who tell us they get more money (Work &
Income support) living separately from their partner than they would if they reconciled •	amilies moving homes frequently incurring
debts with bonds, rent, power and phone •	 n increase in high level benefit fraud incidences especially in the last couple of years
  C                                                                                           A
•	hildren not being sent to school regularly because food is short or school fees unpaid •	 few instances of single women coming to
New Zealand as refugees and having children and getting the DPB after arriving and applying to get a Housing NZ home •	ome clients
                                                                                 E                                F
use family assistance for debt repayment such as cars, hire purchases etc. •	xisting Welfare bill very high •	eeling of anger and
frustration among the working public that some beneficiaries get a better deal than those that work especially when there is publicity
about what clients on the DPB are paid •	 e see the grown up children of clients we saw 10 years ago in the same situations as their

The current system marginalizes people. It ignores the strengths and talent of of those receiving benefits. It disempowers people
often creating cycles of dependence
The USA example of six months on a benefit and then six months without a benefit should apply here. Long term benefits only drain
the will of the individual to seek gainful employment and drain the economy.

Low self esteem. Little hope for the future for themselves as individuals and as whanau and families. Poor personal health
prioritisation , institutional disrespect , crime to supplement poor benefit income , Alcohol and drug issues , family violence , stress ,

Children grow up with no concept of working for a living/work ethic. Families are unable to engage fully in society. Frustration
among workers who view beneficiaries as living off 'their taxes'. Welfare becomes an alternative lifestyle rather than a temporary
hand up. People lose motivation and become "comfortable" in their situation. People develope a victim mentality and over inflated
sense of entitlement.
Long term beneficiaries loose hope, even though some may want to work and can, they feel that they will be shunted into some
crappy minimum wage job, with crap hours and earn less than a benefit, end up just saving enough to move to Australia where
everything is better than here, introduce any policy like this and watch the mass exodus.

It keeps the economy smoother- as all the money is spent on rent and consumables in local businesses. It prevents the worst kinds of
underclasses developing, and reduces homelessness and begging.
Poverty trap, increased crime, increased health risk, decreased educational achievement

Mainly negative; why work or contribute to society when there is an easy alternative available? Loss of self esteem.
I can see both positive and negative impacts. You cannot boilerplate a simplistic solution for all beneficiaries. I say this because
many recipients who suffer from chronic mental illnesses for which I have had over 20 years' experience with as a care giver just
would NOT be employed by employers in the private sector. I say this because I was one of those employers who tried this and the
experiment failed!! Schizophrenia in particular, is incurable, lasts for the lifetime of the sufferer and requires the statutory
supervision of either family or state care givers under or in conjunction with the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment &
Treatment) Act 1992. It is thus incompatible with the concept of sustainable employment. Thus for many, being on a long term
benefit is the only positive course of action for the Government, as the Government is ultimately responsible for the national good,
law and order. Of course, it also can have a negative impact upon those who are by definition capable of work but are in effect
ostracised by employers due to long periods of absence from the work force.
I personally find it incredible that anyone would want to stay long term on a benefit as I see the system eroding people's dignity and
self worth, let alone a standard of living. The way WINZ treats people is pretty appalling in my view (and I only know this anecdotally
as have never been a beneficiary), and there is a lack of respect for the personhood of benficiaries exhibited by many staff.
Undoubtedly there is an economic impact at all levels, but you do have to accept that there is always going to be a small percentage
of people who can never work.

Low Self Esteem Lack of Motivation Poverty Poor Education levels Lack of Early Intervention Poor Parenting Crime Domestic
What aspects of the benefit system contribute to long-term benefit          What do you see as the main barriers to employment for       What are the barriers to employers hiring long-term
receipt?                                                                    people on a benefit?                                         beneficiaries?

Open-Ended Response                                                         Open-Ended Response                                             Open-Ended Response
Becoming dependent on it. Losing one's self respect and confidence in       Lack of confidence and self-worth. A sense (and the reality) of They would need to nurture them back into work and good
one's ability to work. Adjusting one's lifestyle to the poverty level and   becoming de-skilled. A certain cynicism towards 'the system' work habits, retrain them, inspire them, believe in them.
giving up all aspirations to beng a self-respecting worker.                 and a general sense of alienation from society.

Not sure.                                                                   Not enough good jobs                                         They don't want people with disabilities to work for them.

a. Lack of effective supports to those seeking employment (this          Absence of jobs with good employment conditions; lack of
comment is informed by observation of others going through the           effective vocational assistance (see above)
process -- the vocational assistance that was offered was partial, and
worse than ineffective in that it raised expectations and left the
beneficiaries worse off than ever). b. Lack of structured opportunities
for reciprocity -- the only role open to the beneficiary n the system is
that of being the passive needy recipient. Opportunities to also be a
social contributor, eg through Timebanking should be considered.
Working in the 'volunteer' sector helps keep people participating in the
wider society, maintaining or developing work skills, maintaining or
extending their networks.
The lack of appropriate support for getting back into the workforce eg in Lack of sufficient jobs.                                        Prejudice, and beneficiaries lacking in appropriate skills.
terms of requried (re)training.

it becomes generational - parents then their offsprings see it as a        for most - unskilled and not qualified for jobs main barrier   long-term beneficiaries are too lazy and prefer to get money
normal thing to do.                                                        for younger people - too lazy to work secondary school does    for doing nothing than working employers not having faith
                                                                           not teach young people enough to seek employment role          in potential employees lack of finances to provide
                                                                           modeling to young generation from parents that being on the    professional development for potential employee
                                                                           benefit is 'normal'
Tightly older two income middle class establishment that results in the       Outdated society structural with little vision, loss of           Many long term beneficiaries are viewed as 'miss the boat' as
unemployed getting mainly poor job options that don't enable people           community family value, and paranoid self-centreness. As          they compete with establish workers and why would an
move off the benefit properly. Poor job prospects result from a               now we have more two income families especially in the            employer take the risk or care to employ someone who's
complex cognitive, personal and social perception interaction and             middle classes never take time off when children are young        been out of work long term when there are so many others
dynamics that occurs within an individual and his/her relationship with       (resulting from house loan stress and 'keep the seat warm at      to choose from - 'there must be something wrong with
the world. For example I wonder how many long term welfare                    work', or I lose my rung) are further encourage with the ECE      him/her. As now more two income families especially in the
dependents have some form of mild or moderate disabilities that's not         grant. Plus the older less creative middle income workers         middle classes never take time off when children are young
considered to be life threatening, but a dam hinderance when                  who insist on hang onto his/her work after 65 when they           and are further encourage with the ECE grant and older non
competing with those without disabilities others for jobs. I wonder           don't need the money. Resulting in job envy as less               creative middle income workers who keep working and hang
how many have learning difficulties that then resulted in the person          opportunities have been opened up for the most vulnerable         on to 65 and over resulting in less opportunities been opened
developing of secondary conditions or behaviors. For example someone          the young and those on long term welfare. These groups            up for the most vulnerable the young and long term welfare
who is described as 'learn disable' i.e. dyslexia - wouldn't it be possible   need these average jobs to break out so they can move on          groups who need these jobs.
that he/she is more likely to develop coping or adaptive behaviors that       from the carousal of token gesture dead end minimal wage
could either be positive or negative - he/she may develop a centralized       jobs.
view and be thinking hokey dokey I' m not good at school maybe I will
do a trade or could they become behaviorally disrupted or silently
internalizing from an early age they are failures and therefore unable to
compete academically and inherently have less employment, status,
income prospects in the long run. For example I am mild/moderate
deaf auditory sequence disabilities - so how do I compete in an initial
telephone interview or in most jobs that require good hearing even
An overall absence of urgency to move off benefits and into jobs, and a       A loss of confidence is the main barrier to people seeking jobs   Employers can end up spending a lot of time and energy
lack of work requirements.                                                    - they becoming accepting of their situation and give up          helping beneficiaries who are not really genuinely committed
                                                                              trying to get a job even though their lives may become            to working for a living - because the beneficiaries know that if
                                                                              chaotic and quite bleak. That's why they must be required to      they don't like the job, they can go back onto welfare.
                                                                              move off benefits and seek work, with additional support
                                                                              such as child care, financial advice, CV preparation and other
                                                                              assistance provided for those who need extra help.
•	 short-term focus on getting people of the benefit into any work,          H
                                                                           •	 ealth problems, disabilities and childcare responsibilities all     In
                                                                                                                                                •	 theory, the only barriers to employers hiring a benefit
rather than meaningful work (working conditions, decent wage, job                                                             A
                                                                           present major and legitimate barriers to work •	 lack of jobs        recipient are the same as for any other worker, however, as
security), resulting in churn between paid work and benefit receipt                                         D
                                                                           due to economic conditions •	 ifficulty in finding meaningful        noted in the answer to Q6, due to the extent of time away
•	ow benefit levels, leading to ill-health and exacerbating barriers to    employment (decent wages, working conditions, and job                from the workforce, the problem of hidden information is
employment •	    Inadequate incentives to work, due not because of high    security, i.e., work that is not short-term or insecure, which       amplified, i.e., concern about whether they have hired a
benefit levels, but rather high effective marginal tax rates reducing the  can lead to churn between paid work and benefit receipt)             lemon (i.e., unproductive, unreliable, have a poor work ethic,
financial incentive to work, especially considering the other potential      N
                                                                           •	 ot wanting many of the jobs available to the unemployed,          have poor attendance due to health problems?)
costs involved (e.g., lost time with children, cost of childcare, low job  which are ‘precarious’ or insecure and which have fewer
security, stand-down period for receiving the benefit if job is lost) •	ackrights, benefits and don’t pay as well (or offer the same
of integration and coherence among the benefit system, the tax system                                                 P
                                                                           security) as a full-time, permanent job •	eople on the
and parent-friendly (particularly for sole-parents) labour market          benefit may not have the requisite skills desired by employers
legislation/support packages o(e.g., giving sole parents the option of       E                                                   T
                                                                           •	mployer prejudices against those unemployed o	he labour
receiving government funded income for taking leave from work that         market is, for unemployed people who often discover to their
would otherwise be unpaid to look after their children during the school   cost, a classic example of a market with the problem of
holidays (4 weeks paid leave versus 12 weeks school holidays), or          hidden information. There is an old adage that it’s a lot easier
assistance to pay for school holiday programmes, e.g., an extension of     to get a job when you’ve already got one than when you are
the thinking behind the 20 hours free ECE for 3-4 year olds) •	he  T       out of work. The reason is hidden information: potential
introduction of the 3-month probation period reduces job security,         employers don’t know you personally, and the fact that you
while they will also face stand-down periods if they are to lose their job are unemployed indicates that you might be a lemon. Even if
before receiving the benefit again.                                        you were let go from your previous job through no fault of
                                                                           your own, unemployment carries a stigma. Being
I would suggest it is far easier to receive a DPBenefit than make the      The level of financial support provided to beneficiaries which       I have been in the position of employing staff. Some of the
effort to go to work every day where you are accountable and               is far too generous. Often it exceeds that of the normal             people I employed were long term beneficiaries who proved
responsible to others and still face the dramas and pleasures of bringing working couple with children.                                         to be very worthwhile staff members after the intial couple of
up children. It is hard to face up and get a job when you know you have                                                                         months of adjusting to employment. Often the first few
responsibilites but that is what many individuals in society have to do as                                                                      paypackets they had earned themselves developed a pride in
part of life. I consider the Domestic Purpose and Unemployment                                                                                  them that just increased. Also they felt they were able to do
beneficiaries I have been in contact with over the years have told me                                                                           what ever they wanted to do as they were no longer
they feel they are owed the benefit by society so they can stay home,                                                                           accountable to Social Welfare. I do not consider there are any
watch their children grow up and be financially provided for by way of a                                                                        barriers apart from those initiated by the long term
benefit. They also used to socialise a great deal during school hours                                                                           beneficiary in their own mind.
which I was not able to do. I would have liked that as well but my child
went to school, same as their children and I was free to work part time
during school hours. I took responsibility and accountability for my
actions but these beneficiaries I know/knew felt it was society's problem
to support them and knew they never had to worry about finding
employment. By the way I left school with School Certificate in 5
subjects that was it.
                                                                              lack of suitable or any work                                  numerous. In a recession employers look for any excuse -
                                                                                                                                            NZers choose on a person's colour, ethnicity and gender
                                                                                                                                            before anything else. the biggest barriers are these attitudes
                                                                                                                                            of employers - education is needed

Lack of judgement is a significant cause of benefit receipt. If one were to   The way benefits are removed often creates an effective tax   There are 2 associated barriers to employing long-term
look at broad categories for needing benefits, the main causes would          rate of 90% or more when benefits are removed as fast as      beneficiaries, and both make the employment process very
be:- Bad Luck, Bad Choices and Bad Attitude. In effect, the welfare           money is earned. In addition, the stand-down period may       risky for prospective employers. These are that it s very
system provides help to different groups of individuals. Some are in          well discourage long term beneficiaries from either seeking   difficult and costly to sack employees who are performing
difficulties and need help to work through their problems. Some have          short term employment, or disclosing the fact that they may   badly, and the only true test of an employees motivation is to
caused their own problems and need help to resolve the current                have a short term job.                                        see how much effort they put into their work. [7b] there is a
problems and also to avoid making the same mistakes again, and some                                                                         degree of suspicion about workplace health programs.
are using the system to avoid their own responsibilities. The current                                                                       Although one expects employers to ensure the safety of the
system actively avoids judging people, which is fine for the first group,                                                                   workplace, governments often seem disposed to use
but creates problems in dealing with the other two groups. I am happy                                                                       employers for health programs that are unrelated to the
for my taxes to be used to help people in difficult circumstances get                                                                       workplace and which are really the responsibility of the
back on their feet. I am extremely unhappy when my taxes are used to                                                                        healthcare system rather than the employers.
fund other peoples’ lifestyles, or to support them whilst they make the
same mistake repeatedly.
In the last twenty years New Zealand has experienced peaks of high        The problem is not that people do not want to work; the           There needs to be more investment by employers in taking
levels of unemployment. Long term unemployment creates outcomes           problem is that there is a lack of jobs. Unemployment for low-    on people who have had time out of the labour market or
of joblessness, social exclusion, entrenched disadvantage and             income people has a disastrous effect. It plunges people who      employment difficulties. This requires training, supportive
alienation. Long term unemployment also leads to mental illness. There    may have been on the margins of poverty and coping into an        programmes and investment and support. Programmes
is clear evidence that extended unemployment increases ill health which   even more precarious situation. Returning to work is very         must be well resourced and have a focus on early
will increase sickness and benefit numbers. Long term unemployment        difficult for workers who have become unemployed. The             intervention and good health and wellbeing in the workplace.
leads not only to long term benefit receipt but to social disadvantage    length of time people are out of work has a strong influence
and hardship poverty. But it is not true that any job is better than no   on the probability of rehabilitation and re-employment.
job. Some jobs are not good jobs and are not good for health or well-     People who unsuccessfully seek employment for months on
being. A study undertaken by Peter Saunders examining how satisfied       end are at greater risk of illness. These difficulties are
people are with their jobs concluded that “bad jobs are more like         compounded for people with low educational levels. When
welfare than they are like good jobs”.(ref to come) 	he end result for    there are enough jobs, then benefit numbers will fall - as they
many beneficiaries is significant churning between the labour market      did from 2004 to 2007. For instance in 1999 there were over
and the benefit system if the only option for employment is low paid,     161,000 people receiving unemployment benefit. By 2008,
precarious and insecure work.                                             this had fallen below 18,000. This did not come about
                                                                          because of major changes in the attitudes of unemployed
                                                                          people towards work in that period. And neither were there
                                                                          more stringent tests applied to qualifying for an
                                                                          unemployment benefit. The most common reason for
                                                                          people going off benefits is that they go back to work. The
                                                                          number of unemployment beneficiaries fell due to strong
I think the main one is the lack of work opportunities, rather than the   The presumed typo on Page 4 of your report sums a ot of it
benefit system per se.                                                    up: 'the risk (sic) of part-time employment' The problem is
                                                                          that many of the job opportunities available to beneficiaries
                                                                          are too poorly paid to encourage a shift and as you point out
                                                                          the complexity of 'doing the sums' is also a disicentive.
                                                                          Education and training are important, as is inheriting the
                                                                          expectation that work is best for both income and the health
                                                                          of an individual.
lack of training opportunities and supports for people to access these- reduced self belief and confidence, limited self capacity       reduced work outcomes- more energy needed to support
training opportunities are too employment focused rather than life skills addictions, educational poverty                               workers
(1)The claw back of any relatively small earnings the beneficiary makes.    (1)Their difficult life circumstances, which are the reasons        (1)Prejudice. (2)Sole mothers have to take time off for
If the beneficiary finds that earning their own money provides them         they are on the benefit in the first place; (2)The lack of          their child’s or children’s health problems - sometimes they
with an improved standard of living they are more likely to want to         provision for education needs; (3)The failure to hold               lose their jobs as a result. (3)Beneficiaries may only be able
extend their hours of work. The current system punishes the                 fathers to account for providing for their children so that sole    to work part-time. (4)There are plenty of others around for
beneficiary for working by removing any benefits from earning.              mothers cannot move beyond their circumstances; (4)and              work who lack the complications of a life of a beneficiary.
(2)There is no recognition of the spasmodic nature of contract work,        the failure to provide sufficiently for transport costs and child   (5)Beneficiaries may lack access to recent education or
which may pay a lump sum on one week but may not pay again for              care in order to allow beneficiaries to seek and sustain            training due to the inability to pay for it in a society that
months. (3)The $80.00 limit to earning before the claw back occurs          employment.                                                         demands increasing tertiary education costs and a welfare
allows a beneficiary to only earn enough to subsidize the food, which is                                                                        system that is not prepared to pay for training.
not paid for by the benefit currently. (4)The failure to allow the
beneficiary the child support payments from fathers, which means that
fathers do not pay their child support and the sole mother never
receives the extra financial support she needs. This means she becomes
further bound into poverty.

Firstly, the low level of payments. This leads to poor physical and         The changing labour market would be the major factor. This As above and including the low level of benefit payment
mental health and prevents people from being able to move beyond            includes the increasing casualisation of the job market which which has such an impact on those receiving it that they
their circumstances. Also the high effective marginal tax rates making it   makes it very difficult for people to get well paid and secure cannot prepare for work appropriately.
extremely difficult for people to move into work. Secondly, the punitive    jobs. As mentioned above the lack of education and training
attitude towards beneficiaries - the attitude that this something they      prevents people from moving into meaningful occupations.
have brought upon themselves. Thirdly, the lack of any real support and     The main barriers to employment come not from the welfare
training to help people into worthwhile jobs.                               system but from factors external to it- the labour market and
                                                                            the present economic downturn caused by the financial
                                                                            market failure. Ironically, that group now becoming
                                                                            beneficiaries themselves.
- language use: e.g people register for a "benefit" rather than present     -the current system of registration sets the tone of             - Fear and prejudice. 'I'll lose time and money if this person
themselves, their circumstances, skills and work history and register       expectation. Yes, collect core details at reception but then     doesn't 'work out'.' Yet, a few minutes spent explaining the
their availability and willingness to find work. -the current MSD system    ensure that a full indepth interview by trained, experienced     workplace, its systems, purposes and production processes
itself and its previous guises NZ Employemnt; Work and Income etc.          personnel follows immediately. Discussion about                  on a one to one in a caring and understanding way, with a
somehow end up working to suppport their own systems rather than            arrangments regarding interim financial support comes next,      clear setting out of expectations in regard to time, dress,
being person focused. The former focuses on gathering information           followed by expectations, encouragment and assistance            language etc. and then appointing and introducing a mentor
about.....and so becomes over time disempowering, even paternalistic ..     toward likely job possibilities to be searched out before next   whom the new employee can access at any time over
the latter on persons their decisons, initiatives and clhoices and calls    meeitng in one week's time. A sense of urgency is important      anything will go a long way to creating a positive and
people forward toward the achievment of their own goals. Each visit can     to convey. (4:9) I absolutely concur with the WWG's concern      welcoming environment. It will also invite effort and
reinforce either of these paths since when electronic data is accessed,     about the detrimental effects on self-esteem, mental and         contribution. - Wanting ready made perfecton forgetting
the new session often commences by going back over the old                  physical health of long term dependency. (4:3) -not enough       that they themselves began as a new recruit once. -
information. -MSD staff are trained to administer the various benefits      work available -not enough effort on part of some employers      Unwillingness to ask other seasoned staff to lend a hand to
and entitlements. Yes, that's one requirment but surely the skills of       to mentor people without work for some time back in the          the new employee - unwillingness to do the bit of paperwork
compassion, with firmness, integrity and visibility, skills that enable     routines and consistency of effort that is requred in the        required to access governement financial schemes that
people to feel respected, accepted and at ease in what is yet a planned     workplace. Someone has to give job seekers a first break -       would benefit them and the newemployee.
and purposeful meeting are just as inportant? AND these apply               difficulty of convenient childcare centres; cost of these;
regardless of nationality.                                                  appropriate after school care -travel costs and time when
                                                                            using public transport - especially with solo prengts who have
                                                                            to get others chn away to school, etc. before heading out
Lack of training for the beneficeries ( invalid beneficieriers used to be   Lack of training of WINZ staff Lack of case managers Lack of     Lack of understanding Predjudice Cost of supplying physical
able to get $1000 worth of training, per annum I think)                     upskilling programes for beneficeries                            changes to workplace e g ramps
The benefit system enforces poverty and thus hold people captive         Currently the primary barrier is the lack of available             The primary barrier seems to be one of employer perception,
through mechanisms such as asset testing of accommodation                employment of any kind and the fierce competition in the job       which has not been assisted by the way beneficiaries are
supplement which prevents people saving money for the goal of home       market. In the long term the barriers are employers                portrayed by media and politicians. Employers in the main
ownership. Another mechanism which holds people on benefit is the        preference to employ someone who is already in                     seem to feel that they are unable to cope with staff with
abatement regime which creates a very high effective marginal tax rate   employment Employers reluctance to employ youth, sole              health or caring issues and seem to avoid these staff in
and makes paid work unworthwhile for anymore than $80 gross for UB,      parents and Maori, as is reflected in the high residual            preference for staff without these issues. There is also a
SB, and IYB.                                                             unemployment figures for this group is clearly a further           perception that more time will be needed for someone who
                                                                         barrier. As a side note to this I believe that the 90 day trial    has been out of work to "get up to speed". There is a
                                                                         legislation will exacerbate this issue, and these disadvantaged    perception that beneficiaries lack the work ethics, work
                                                                         individuals will experience significant "churning", that is        habits and commitment that they can get from someone
                                                                         movement between the workforce and benefit system.                 already engaged in the labour market, but dis-satisfied with
                                                                         Further barriers are related to the position of each individual    their current employment. As an employer I have found all of
                                                                         and their circumstances but significantly include access to        these perceptions to be incorrect, I have found that those I
                                                                         childcare, caring obligations, esp parenting (parenting doesn't    hire from the "disadvantaged" groups are hardworking and
                                                                         stop when the child is six, often parents find the challenges of   loyal employees who will go the extra mile, in contrast people
                                                                         parenting older children such as teenagers greater) only the       coming from other employment often have work habits and
                                                                         parent(s) involved can assess whether they are able to work,       ethics that are unhelpful which may be why they are "on the
                                                                         as well as adequately meet their children's needs. Health          market". I have found that staff with health issues and caring
                                                                         issues are a major barrier for many people, and although           responsibilities are no harder to manage than anyone else
                                                                         there is information suggesting that being in work is              and bring a richness to the workplace. I believe that
                                                                         healthier, these studies do state that this work needs to be       employers need much better education on the role of an
In my view, the benefit system plays only a very minute role in               1. Employers who want their workers to be 'flexible' (in           1. New Zealand's highly deregulated labour market and
contributing to long-term benefit receipt (through 'churning' from one        terms of the hours they work etc) but are unwilling to be          economy which does not allow employers to offer security or
benefit to another etc). The broader factors behind long-term benefit         flexible in the work options they offer to workers, especially     decent incomes to many of their workers. 2. Poor
receipt are New Zealand's highly deregulated, low-wage economy,               those with children or living with a disability/long-term          knowledge of/interest in the challenges that people with a
employer discrimination against people with disabilities/living with long-    illness. 2. New Zealand's highly deregulated labour market         disability/long-term illness and parents face in taking up and
term illness, the failure of New Zealand's education system to ensure all     and economy which does not allow employers to offer                maintaining a paid job. This reflects a broader societal
young people have the knowledge and training to function in the               security or decent incomes to many of their workers. 3.            problem with attitudes towards the value of parenting and of
modern labour market and the lack of affordable, quality childcare            Poorly funded, poor quality childcare options for working          disability/illness. 3. A mismatch between the training and
options for parents. If these structural issues were resolved, I believe      parents 4. The lack of sufficient transitional supports            knowledge that our educational system offers many New
that far fewer benefit recepients would require financial assistance in       (regarding supplments for accommodation, childcare, other          Zealanders and the jobs available. 4. Poorly funded, poor
the long-term. The ageing of our population must also be regarded as a        types of family assistance) that ensure income adequacy and        quality childcare options for working parents 5. The lack of
crucial factor in long-term benefit receipt of Invalid's and Sickness         provide some security of income as benefit recipients make         sufficient transitional supports (regarding supplements for
benefits.                                                                     the jump from a benefit to work. 5. Growing credentialism          accommodation, childcare, other types of family assistance)
                                                                              which sees many young people see university as the only            that ensure income adequacy and provide some security of
                                                                              viable training option, when many would be better off in           income as benefit recipients make the jump from a benefit to
                                                                              forms of vocational training (such as trade apprenticeships)       work.
                                                                              that would not only better suit their interests/skill levels but
                                                                              also provide them a decent income - in addition, to meeting
                                                                              the needs of the economy.

1. there is a sense of lack of trust towards the beneficiary founded on       Not addressing the needs of the beneficiaries by asking them not able to answer this question do not have this experience.
the premise that abuses to the service must be insured against. This          and giving them what they need. The paradox is that many
does not recognise that most of us just want to be like like everybody        people that are beneficiaries are often encouraged into
else getting on with our lives. Beneficiaries are people with identities 2.   voluntary work. and not offered what they need to give them
Not addressing the needs of beneficiaries by not giving them what they        paid work .Beneficiaries are sent on courses that have little
need at the critical time of those needs creates a chronic condition. 3.      to do with their abilities . This costs money which would be
Currently for invalids and sickness benefits the authority is via doctors     more wisely directed to the needs of the beneficiary. WINZ is
who are trained to recognise pathology but not what assists people to         not very effective in their delivery of employment services.
live fully within the constraints of the illness or disablitity they have.
Only the people concerned can answer this. Recognition that these
conditions may be for life. 4.Being short sighted about what constitutes
See answer to question 2.                                                Public attitude and lack of support for genuine employment       Lack of business opportunity due to continual (global)
                                                                         assistance (eg education and ethics promotion) for both          supression domestic economic base. Low wage economies
                                                                         employers and employees, in the face of sucessful exploititive   created to favour export led economies. Poor and
                                                                         cultures.                                                        exploitative job creation environment; difficult business
                                                                                                                                          environments for producers, creating need for excessive
                                                                                                                                          price gouging, and a savage commercial environment . Poor
                                                                                                                                          demand for much other than essental products(food, shelter
                                                                                                                                          etc) due to poverty in domestic market . Commercial
                                                                                                                                          exploitation of the education service and un- affordable
                                                                                                                                          vocational training.

No aspects do. The benefits are needed by those less fortunate in some Public stigma and disapproval. Discrimination. Lack of             Insecurity about how it may benefit their business and
circumstances such as health, employment, relationships, age           acceptance of individual worth or skills in limited degree         reluctance to provide positions outside of the usual.
[inclusive].                                                           according to the individual circumstance.
To blame an aspect of the benefit system for creating long-term benefit High rate of structural unemployment, racism, sexism and             A combination of the economic crisis caused by the 2008
reciept is like blaming the mini-skirt a women is wearing for the sexual disablism.                                                          collapse of banking & finance markets, the consequent
harassment she experiences. The WWG should be looking at structural                                                                          economic downturn, their failure to invest in fixed capital
unemployment, racism, sexism, disablism and the greed of bankers and                                                                         when the economy was booming 2000-08, their lack of
financiers who got away with causing the current economic downturn                                                                           innovation and bigotry.
as the likely causes of long term benefit receipt.

Giving people a 'leg up', providing a basic standard of living that enable   It depends on the reason why they are on the benefit. A          Prejudice
children to be healthy enough to benefit from a free education ensures       sickness benefit or disability benefit is because people are not
that the vast majority of the population are in a position to give back      well or fit enough to be employed in most positions for which
substantially to society.                                                    they are qualified. Domestic Purposes Benefit enables single
                                                                             parents to have enough money to ensure that their children
                                                                             are healthy and educated enough to contribute to society as
                                                                             they grow up. Unemployment benefit is because the person
                                                                             has been unable to find a job. The recession has decreased
                                                                             the number of jobs available, jobs are in the main centres, so
                                                                             those on benefits in other centres are unable to seek jobs
                                                                             there. If the benefit is kept at a level of minimal subsistence,
                                                                             without any help for training and education, then there will
                                                                             be further barriers to employment.
                                                                             Lack of skills and if on a benefit for a long time then health They don't have jobs to offer. All of the above.
                                                                             and psychological problems develop. The latter leads to
                                                                             increased difficulty in finding work and could be avoided with
                                                                             better benefits, work schemes and training. Lack of
                                                                             unskilled and some skilled jobs since there is insufficient
                                                                             focus on children and young people who do not fit into the
                                                                             system through no fault of their own. The earliest possible
                                                                             intervention in the lives of needy families is required to
                                                                             reduce the significant number of unemployable people there
                                                                             are now. This requires long term thinking and cross party
                                                                             support. Needs a visionary government.

Its not the benefit system, its government policies; tax,discrimination vs   Discrimination, due to country of origin, to qualified people   For immigrants, they cn't be fired because they haven't had
immigrants, those who have been in mental health system and that are         whose qualifications are not recognised, and in my case         job experience in New Zealand so employers always have a
eminently qualified by degrees, tall poppies, idea people who usually        because I was black listed and also fired from a j ob for a     reason not to employ a new immigrant.. Particularly in
leave New Zealand. The benefit system has difficulties because people        "attitude" and not work performance so that my employer's       education and health employers make life difficult for
can choose between getting a minimum wage job and living in poverty,         violation of the employment act didn't count. I could never     applicants. I have always been an ace at getting work in the
or having more benefits and living in poverty on the benefit.                work again. This is a disgrace.                                 USA and the UK but in New Zealand it is impossible. I settled
                                                                                                                                             for cleaning floors, toilets and cooking for 25; working in a
                                                                                                                                             green grocer, market research, care work but I was qualified
                                                                                                                                             to teach high school in the UK and had taught school in the
                                                                                                                                             USA. NZ is 20 years behind the UK and USA in mental health
                                                                                                                                             but as a trained mental health professional with lots of
                                                                                                                                             experience and good letters of reference, my skills have never
                                                                                                                                             been used in this country. Strangely enought New
                                                                                                                                             Zealanders see nothing wrong with this waste of skills. The
                                                                                                                                             brain drain is not so much people leaving New Zealand, as
                                                                                                                                             ignoring the qualified people here who cannot get proper
                                                                                                                                             jobs. You have to know someone to get a job and that is the
                                                                                                                                             only way to get on the employment ladder.
Failure to offer appropriate support to those seeking work, and means Lack of available employment
and asset testing that that does not give incentive to those who would
like to do casual or part-time work as they transition and prepare for full-
time work. Limited availability of good and affordable child-care for

Again, long-term provision is not the central issue. The only aspects of   Poverty traps due to perversities in the tax/benefit system        The main barrier to employment generally is the woeful lack
the system that contribute to this are whether recipients meet the         and its current lack of integration.                               of qualified people, which in turn stems from under-funding
criteria for eligibility.                                                                                                                     in education and training. In addition, people do not always
                                                                                                                                              want to move to where employment is more plentiful,
                                                                                                                                              because of family ties and loyalty to local communities.

Low income, abatement rates, the assessment of household income as         Ability and the lack of reward for most unskilled people. I        Very few, however there are always those who have not been
opposed to individual income.                                              would rather steal than work for McDonalds.                        unemployed for long periods who will be selected first.

The way some WINZ staff treat benefit receipients - as though they are     Lack of affordable & convenient childcare. Lack of                 Often poor literacy & numeracy. No formal qualifications. no
worthless & unworthy. Poor knowledge of diferent assistance available      understanding employers who will not allow parents time off        work skills or previous exprience => no referees. no phone
displayed by some WINZ staff. An inflexible system. Lack of access to      to care for sick children or take their children to                number or email address to enable them to contact applicant
high quality further education since the TIA was discontinued. No          appointments without making them feel guilty or threatening        quickly. Childcare issues. Health issues
childcare subsidy available to people who are looking for work.            their work security. Lack of transport to attend job
                                                                           interviews & enable them to get to work on time. Lack of a
                                                                           drivers' licence. Lack of computer skills & access to internet.
                                                                           Lack of access to a telephone to make & return calls to
                                                                           prospective employers or to ring in if they are going to be sick
                                                                           or late. Being unable to get time off in the school holidays.
                                                                           Unacceptable wait times when applying for OSCAR subsidies.
                                                                           Inability to make WINZ appointments outside of nomal work
                                                                           hours to apply for OSCAR or childcare subsidies,
                                                                           accommodation aupplement etc. Lack of access to high
                                                                           quality further education since the TIA was discontinued.
                                                                           Expectations of extended family that they will be there to
                                                                           look after the kids after school, take grandma to her hospital
                                                                           appointments etc.
It is too easy to get a benefit. For example, beneficiaries are given a     There is a fear about going off the benefit and the new job       Failing pre-employment drug tests is a common issue. There
sickness benefit (SB) application and sent to see a Doctor. There is an     not coming up to expectation. Beneficiaries can be                are other issues linked with a lack of motivation and
expectation that this certificate will be signed and the majority of GP's   paradoxically worse off because their remuneration is less        hopelessness such as lack of punctuality, absenteeism and
do provide these certificates based largely on the claimant's own           than their benefit. In such cases it would be sensible to pay a   drug use.
diagnosis. Case Managers are not allowed to challenge these                 "top up" for a short time which is cheaper than having the
certificates. Anecdotally, DSW Case managers tell me that GP's seldom       person on a full benefit.
refuse to sign a SB application and in every town there are "rubber
stamp" GP's who can be found for this purpose. This explains the
ridiculous situation of people being on a SB for up to 20 years. In
contrast ACC Case Managers can refuse to accept a medical certificate
which has inadquate information or is poorly justified. Another
problem is where the benefit system provides an income which is close
to or even exceeds the remuneration of a paid job. The beneft level
needs to be adjusted so it leaves an incentive for people to continue to
look for paid work.

Not really sure just what you are getting at!                               Apart grom the FACT that so many just don't want to work,         As above! So many don't want to work, and if they
                                                                            there is probably not the work available.                         commenced "forced" employment they would muck up what
                                                                                                                                              they were doing so that they would be termed unsuitable for
                                                                                                                                              that type of work an have to be dismissed.

the definition of entitlement to the sickness benefit seems very            see above
loose..from memory it refers to any condition that limits an individual's
ability to seek or undertake the person with asthma who can't
work in a dusty environment, or the person with a chronic back problem
who can't do heavy lifting, both qualify for the SB. There might be many
jobs they could do, but because their choice of work is limited they
qualify for the benefit. Some, ?many, of these conditions are
controllable but not curable, so the limitation on choice of work is likely
to be lifelong. Retraining/ adapting to one's strengths/weaknesses
should be the focus to achieve return to the work force. I have worked
as a GP for >10 yrs. It seems many patients and many WINZ case
managers prefer to be on the SB rather than the UEB.
Society needs to accept that some people will need more support than    As above.                                                     not sure
others. As a society we have to help each other in order to function
properly. Everyone's contribution in society is unique...

                                                                                                                                      I have cerebral palsy, a congenital physical disability. I do
                                                                                                                                      work part time, am highly educated with a Bachelor of Arts,
                                                                                                                                      Diploma in Library and Information Studies, and National
                                                                                                                                      Certificate in Computing (Level 2 and 3). I think the
                                                                                                                                      question posed here is far too simplistic. My barrier to work
                                                                                                                                      is not the fact that I'm a long term beneficiary, but the
                                                                                                                                      attitudes of employers when employing someone with a
                                                                                                                                      disability. One of my voluntary jobs in on the Local Area
                                                                                                                                      Committee of CCS Disability Action. Their employment
                                                                                                                                      service for disabled people were only able to find
                                                                                                                                      employment for 8% of the applicants over the last year. Just
                                                                                                                                      to add here that not all beneficiaries do nothing. The
                                                                                                                                      "beneficiary bashing" political ideology of the political right
                                                                                                                                      generate this stereotype. It's the system of work that has to
Incentives are skewed to income maintenance rather than short term     The welfare support system itself, the incentives are not in   Skill, recent work experience, expectations mis match
support (insurance) and the person working with the system to take the place to encourage people to find employment The longer        betweent the employer and the person. There is also the
next step to economic independence                                     the person is unemployed (UB,SB, IB,DPB) the longer the        potential for stigma against a person who is state supported
                                                                       person is out of the labour market, the less attractive they
                                                                       are to the current market and the more vulnerable the
                                                                       person becomes and then they become a "victim" of the
                                                                       system and victimised by the system.

                                                                        for the disabled-the lack of relvant skills and abilities     for the disabled-a concern about health and safety issues and
                                                                                                                                      a fear of the unknown. A lack of incentives
Being able to claim benefits straight from school without having to       Drug /alcohol addiction. Lack of a sufficient wage to maintain Drug and alcohol addiction. Expectations of too much sick
participate in work/purposeful activity. Pays as much, if not more        an acceptable living standard. Lack of education. Lack of      leave - which could perhaps be overcome to some extent by
sometimes, to be on a benefit than to work, therefore easier and more     employment opportunities. Lack of confidence to participate flexible working hours and a positive environment.
secure. Insufficient/inaccurate assessment of need. Ease of defrauding    in work. Lack of 'sympathetic' employers, including taking on
the system by working and claiming benefits at the same time, therefore   part-timers and only expecting part-time outcomes, working
insufficient follow-up. Parents being able to remain on a benefit after   hours that allow flexibility for family commitments,
their youngest child reaches the age of 8 years.                          disabilities. Lack of affordable and appropriate child-care.

As the current benefits system requires people to continue seeking jobs Long periods without a job and the act of losing a job in the      Workers are likely to be out of the loop on latest
it cannot be seen to be promoting long term receipt itself. The issue   first place can cause mental injury to confidence which will       technology/standards in their area as a result of the long
comes with barriers to employment.                                      result in less ability to obtain a new job. At present there are   period of unemployment. References are no longer likely to
                                                                        not enough jobs available in the economy overall for people        be valid/helpful. They may simply not have the money to
                                                                        to be employed however this will eventually fade provided          hire them. The effect of having a large number of
                                                                        the recession isn't double dip. People in isolated                 unemployed people in a region is to dampen the ability for
                                                                        communities may have no jobs available for them in their           business to expand thus dampening the number of jobs.
                                                                        region. They may be unwilling to move to find work, whether        There is a great deal of prejudice against beneficiaries at
                                                                        they should be compelled to do so would depend on a great          present due to negative light cast on them by the media
                                                                        deal of variables and there is probably not a practical solution   despite reasonable explanations for the majority of them.
                                                                        to this issue. Lack of skills particularly basic high school
                                                                        education can make finding a job incredibly difficult and
                                                                        advice on how to get training it difficult to find after you
                                                                        leave school. Affording it even more difficult. Having
                                                                        dependent children, spouses or parents can greatly detract
                                                                        from the hours a person might be able to work during making
                                                                        finding a job in their area impossible. Many people are
                                                                        simply unable to work and thus are long term sickness
                                                                        beneficiaries. The high rates of tax when coming off benefits
                                                                        can make working not worth it. The loss of benefit payments
Basically, I do not believe any aspect of the system contributes to long-    For beneficiaries in general, childcare costs, petrol costs, self-   1) Fear. Fear that accommodating someone with a disability
term benefit receipt, I believe people themselves make a decision to         perpetuating lack of self-esteem, and as mentioned above,            into one's workplace will be costly financially in terms of
stay on a benefit. However, I think what perhaps encourages people to        the small amount one is allowed to earn while still receiving a      altering the working environment, and perhaps cause
stay on benefits for an overly long period is the fact that the amount       benefit (in cases where partial reliance on a benefit is             difficulty for other workers in terms of the disabled worker
one is allowed to earn while receiving a benefit is so infinitessimally      necessary), all conspire to make it difficult for a beneficiary to   not being able to fit in; fear they will be inferior to able-
small that people are truly "better off on the benefit", as the saying       re-join (or join) the workforce. In the case of those with           bodied workers in their work; fear that a single parent will
goes, This amount has not been raised for years, and raising it to reflect   disabilities, however, there are the added disadvantages of          need excessive time off to take care of sick children. 2) Bias.
the level of some part-time job wages might encourage people into at         physical barriers in the workplace or on public transport, the       The beneficiary may lack recent experience, which often
least part-time work. Also, paying an ever-increasing amount for a           prohibitive costs of both public and disabled-friendly               discourages employers from employing them (although the
growing family may be a mistake. Capping the benefit after a certain         transport, and where one does have one's own transport,              recent '90-day rule' may help with this, as if the employee
amount of children may convince people that they are better off              parking - where I come from in Auckland, this is an especially       doesn't work out the employer now has the ability to let
working to care for those children, rather than raising them on the          big problem. Also in some cases, infirm health often prevents        them go). And in the case of a person with a disability, the
State. As well, the parents could be encouraged to go back to work once      a full working week, necessitating some reliance on a benefit        belief that someone may be intellectually, as well as
the youngest child is at school, with the benefit reducing after this time   to survive adequately. While this aspect has been made more          physically, impaired, and therefore unable to perform the job
unless there is a good reason why the parent cannot work.                    possible by the Employment Contracts Act making it more              (in a similar vein, the employer may believe the old adage
                                                                             acceptable to negotiate with one's employer for fewer hours          that 'beneficiaries are lazy', again discouraging them from
                                                                             of work, it is less easy to use the benefit as a 'top-up' where      employing those on a benefit long-term).
                                                                             necessary, because as mentioned, even part-time wages are
                                                                             often too high to sustain a benefit.

Not difficult to access Lax monitoring eg,excellent work history ,leaves Lack of viable work childcare costs failure to gain work                 no record of work ethics wages need to cover costs of travel,
work for the benefit 3 children,1 pre schooler, earns only $100 a week history No qualifications or academic history                              tools, clothing ,child care
less on the benefit ,and she can stay home and nuture her children.
easy to manipulate,system if I can identify 11 people doing just
that,how many are there?
Lack of jobs. Low pay. Lack of access to appropriate employment             Lack of jobs. Low pay. Lack of access to appropriate               Perceived lack of skills, knowledge, ability, training of the
opportunities. Lack of reliable and affordable transport. Lack of           employment opportunities. Lack of reliable and affordable          beneficiary. There seems to be a level of belief amongst
reliable and affordable childcare. Lack of access to and afforability of    transport. Lack of reliable and affordable childcare. Lack         employers that long-term beneficiaries are 'bludgers' and not
relevant training or study to upskill or retrain. The punitive nature of,   of access to and afforability of relevant training or study to     worth employing because they are not worth investing time
and stigma attached to, the benefit system makes recipients scared of       upskill or retrain.                                                and resources in to 'bring up to speed'. They also tend to look
approaching WINZ to talk to them about their personal situation, needs,                                                                        at long-term unemployed as unreliable. There needs to be a
priorities and requirements and make a realistic plan to move on.                                                                              significant change in attitude by all levels of society to give
                                                                                                                                               long-term unemployed the chances they need.

Lack of assistance to gain education/skills enabling them to change their Lack of employment opportunities available. Childcare, lack None, however employers often view them as lazy, or feel
lives for the better, and move from the welfare system towards self       of support networks, family medical issues, Income             that family situations may affect their performance.
sufficiency.                                                              abatement levels - it is often costing people to work part
                                                                          time, with secondary tax, benefit abatements, travel and
                                                                          childcare costs. The restriction of training incentive
                                                                          allowance to lower level education, has restricted the ability
                                                                          of people to help themselves improve their employment
                                                                          potential, self esteem and earning potential.
None.                                                                     Lack of jobs.                                                  The capitalist socio-economic system.

The benefit system doesn't cause beneficiaries. Benefit receipt is          The government: Structural unemployment to maintain low            None - it's just that people who are currently employed and
caused by economic and social factors in the wider economy.                 inflation at the expense of many New Zealanders. Public            have therefore not been alienated from society look like
                                                                            alienation via "beneficiary bashing" to tar all beneficiaries as   "better bets" than those people who have been discarded by
                                                                            "lazy", creating a further barrier in job interviews. Student      the employment marketplace.
                                                                            loans and tertiary education limits discourage individuals
                                                                            from improving their skills.
Demoralizing people so that they lose what little confidence they have. A lack of jobs that suit their skills. A lack of up skilling to solve   Stigma. Self Esteem. Ability to dress for the occasional. Lack
Having 1/5 of NZ children growing up in poverty thus creating a sub     this problem.                                                           of skills. The fact that if you are one of the few who are on
culture of impoverished people. Not focusing on up skilling and job                                                                             the benefit for a long time then there is probably a reason for
creation and rather trying to modify the benefit system to make those                                                                           it: Illiteracy. Location. Undiagnosed mental illness. Learning
on it even more unhappy about their condition.                                                                                                  difficulties. etc.

None. Benefits do not pay enough for anyone to want to be on them for Lack of suitable jobs with a living wage. Poverty, low self               High unemployment, so over qualified workers move in first,
an extended period. The lack of suitable jobs with a living wage is the esteem, transport, childcare.                                           prejudice towards beneficiaries.
main reason.

Invalids benefit - for those who have been deemed unable to work for a Lack of available jobs due to recession or due to lack of                Lack of available jobs.
reason.                                                                Government investment in job creation.
Leading question. You're implying that some aspects most definitely do.     Inflexibility, unavailability of suitable work, economic policies   A perception of beneficiaries as "bludgers", not least nursed
This is not a school assignment, where respondents paraphrase your          which encourage an increasing concentration of productive           by the current government and the court of public opinion
opinions as an answer. It's Illness, disability and lack of work            assets in fewer and fewer hands. Drug testing people like           fired up by the media. If this issue was discussed rationally,
opportunities that cause long-term benefit receipt, not the system. And     toilet cleaners, without so much as the promise of a job            using real people as examples instead of the most outrageous
to describe the threat of having to live penniless on the street as an      should they fail. Importing foreign labour whenever                 miscreants, employers may be able to relate to what causes
"incentive" is an insult in itself.                                         economic conditions put pressure on wages to rise. If fruit         problems, not jump to ready-made conclusions.
                                                                            growers in Gosborne and many of the other locations
                                                                            mentioned in the discussion paper can't find labour, it's
                                                                            because they're wanting to pay wages well below market
                                                                            expectatiojns, not because people don't want them. If a
                                                                            beneficiary was able to get an annual boost through seasonal
                                                                            work, it would alleviate a lot of the "long-term out of work"
                                                                            problems you identifiy. Instead, they are forced to work for
                                                                            the worst employers (good ones have no trouble finding
                                                                            labour), under the worst conditions and for the minimum
                                                                            wage. Would you do it?

1. The lack of support, funding for and focus on training. 2. The lack of   1. Lack of adequate childcare subsidies 2. Lack of childcare        They tend to be less experienced and often lack training.
childcare subsidies available to all sole parents. For example sole         facilities in some areas 3. Lack of employability ie. low skills,   For sole parents and the sick/disabled, the fact of their
parents in NZ spend around 40% of their income on childcare. Those on       experience, training 4. Lack of financial resources ie. for         illness, disability or the fact that they have dependents makes
a very low income qualify for a subsidy but this does not cover enough      transport, appropriate clothing etc. 5. School holidays: a)         them less attractive to employers because they are seen as
of the costs - it is still not feasible in many cases for sole parents to   the gap between the way school holiday programmes (the              less reliable.
work. 3. The low level of benefits. The poverty beneficiaries live in       only available childcare option in most cases) charge (per
makes it impossible to have the resources needed to gain employment.        day) and the way WINZ subsidises childcare (per hour) b)
This also contributes to preventing those who are sick from recovering.     The lack of any childcare facilities during some parts of the
                                                                            school year ie. holiday programmes only run for a few weeks
                                                                            of the six week summer break. 6. A lack of jobs available and
                                                                            high competition for jobs
For some sickness beneficiaries it's the lack of medical support that is    The lack of jobs in the market. You can't get a job if there are I don't know, I'm not an employer.
preventing them from getting the help they need to get better. For          no jobs going.
some unemployed it's the lack of funding for training that keeps them
stuck. The amount of money that an unemployed person can earn
before there benefit is cut. The way it's calculated before tax is a
disincentive for some to work. They might work 15 hours a week and
end up being financially worse off due to the cuts to their benefit,
basicly making them a slave working for nothing. Being self employed is
very difficult as winz fails to recognise some costs associated with
getting a job done.
No aspect of the benefit system contribute to long-term benefit receipt     No jobs. Shitty pay. 90 day probation period. Abusive     Stigmatisiation. Employees have the view that all
in fact lack of jobs creation policy contributes to long term benefit       emplyees. No union support. No training. No incentives to beneficiaries are useless and the myth is perpetrated by the
receipt plus the pitiful wage rates. Do you really think a miserable $140   move on to more meaningful work. Harassment at pay talks. media. There are no barriers they can hire who they like.
odd dollars a week is an incentive to stay on the dole. Get real.

Can't think of any                                                          Cost of transport, cost of having decent clothes. Little        Hours they are available, Problems they have getting to work.
                                                                            assistance in finding work. Huge difficulties when people start
                                                                            part time work and try to make the transition off benefit.
                                                                            Generally peolpe end up owing Work and Income because of
                                                                            difficulties the system has in coping with part time workers.

A depressed economy. Poor, unfocussed Govt. spending in mental              Lack of actual jobs. The numbers look much better when         Patrician attitudes generally based in fear and ignorance.
health, education over a generation.                                        unemployment is better.

low rates of benefit payments. Lack of training opportunities               No work Unimproved health of sickness beneficaries due to They haven't got any work for them get a grip. Also they
Inadequate health funding No jobs Lack of willingness by government         lack of funding for necessary medical intervention couselling could lack training so train them.
to fund training and health needs of beneficaries                           etc. lack of tarrifs in the economy and cheap imports. Lack of
                                                                            trade restrictions.
The fact that the benefit locks people into poverty because it is too low     It is hard for someone on a beneft to look for work in another     It is hard to generalise, employers may think sole parents will
and stigmatises people, does contribute to them staying on the benefit.       part of the country since it entails the costs of transport, and   want time off because of sick children, they may feel that
Other aspects are the high marginal tax rates if a person takes a part        if successful moving house and children moving schools. The        long term beneficiaries no longer have the work skills and
time job or casual work. This is especially true for solo parents of young    minimum wage is so low it means that the extra costs of            work ethic. They may feel a person with mental health
children who need to be home after school and in school holidays.             working - transport, clothing, child-care- may mean a drop in      problems will be unreliable. The 90 day trial period may
people lose confidence and the work ethic and feel undervalued by             income. Most employers cannot offer solo parents the               encourage employers to give people a chance but for the
society.                                                                      flexibility necessary to look after children, such as school       worker the lack of security and risk of the stand down period
                                                                              holidays, finishing early and having days off to look after sick   may discourage them from taking a job.
                                                                              children. This is also true for people with mental health
                                                                              problems who cannot guarantee they can work regular
                                                                              hours. The new 90 day trial period can also mean a complete
                                                                              lack of security as there may be a stand down period before
                                                                              the benefit is restored if the job is lost.

The lack of a graduated time scale for eventual removal of a benefit, so      The abatement system which operates when recipients find           As above, the abatement system requires administrative
putting the onus on the recipient to plan for the future. The difficulty of   part time/casual work: this is punitive,complex, and costly to     functions which involve an employer in extra work. Secondly,
combining part-time work with benefit receipt with the long-term goal         administer. The consequence is that it is easier to remain on a    the abatement system offers no incentives for an employee
of cessation of a benefit.                                                    benefit, and more secure for the recipient.                        to undertake extra work if and when called on to do so.
                                                                                                                                                 Thirdly, the abatement system keeps employees at a level of
                                                                                                                                                 income which means that any emergency in terms of
                                                                                                                                                 transport/illness/clothing and footwear needs means time off

The lack of requirement for any conditions or semblance of self-           Lack of self-respect due to being rewarded, the lack of any           1. If they take a risk and employ one - they are stuck with
responsibility. The benefit system directly preeches, encourages and       need or requirement to look to improve their circumstances.           them - it takes ages and is costly to get rid of one who, for
sustains the falacy that it is the duty of "the State" (by stealing the                                                                          whatever reaason, fails to do the job required of them. 2.
products of the labours of the taxpayers) to provide for any and                                                                                 The longer somebody is on a benefit the less likely they are to
everybody who is unwilling to make any contribution to society and that                                                                          make the effort required to attend the place of work, on time
it is legitimate for women to insdiscriminately bear babies as a means of                                                                        and with a productive attitude.
sustaining themselves as an alternative to earning a living for
themselves. The same applies to the men who indulge in unprotected
sex thereby "fathering"the babies but taking no responsibility whatever
for either the mother or child. In short the system rewards immorality,
irresponsibility, uncaring and a degenerate worthless existence. Is it any
wonder the list grows and grows?
The trap of well intentioned benifits are that at the earliest stage of      Early on the benifit is too attractive and way too easy to           They will have no work ethic and they will have lose
benefit dependance the income, especially for the DPB, is such that a        never get off                                                        understanding of personal ownership
young solo mother is instantly far better off financially than her peers.
She is in control of her own destiny in her own home. Very soon two or
three years of employment have passed and the peers who chose the
path of working for a living have acumulated posessions and begun a
gradual climb up the earnings ladder by this time the only perceived
advantage to the dpb mum is that she has time to watch the soap
operas. More years pass and the advantages of working have manifest
in increased wealth oportunities and relationships with like individuals.
The solo mum with child at school considers working for a living and
with no work history poor school record and in built feeling of
entitlement sees the entry level wage on offer if any, to be an insult and
less than she gets for doing nothing. Her daughter now 15 years old sees
the life her mum has led as easier than the risks inherent in competing
on the job market and she sure does think kids are cute when they are
little. All Peoples situations must change given time in order to grow
It's defiantly not money you recieve, as It is just enough for the           Jobs for most. Solo mums have many barriers e.g.. childcare          All this hocus pocus about beneficiaries being unemployable,
essentials. I guess their needs to be more support into upskilling,          is a hugey and quite recently training to gain skill and up-skill.   breeding for business. Employers would probable choose a
creating confidence to move off. Creating a good WINZ enviroment in          They also worry about children's sick days, public and school        married woman over a solo mum. Many jobs also state you
which beneficaries are not scared to go there for support. There is          holidays, transport, after school care and people deeming            need experience, which is hard to obtain where there's no
currently wrong envrionment being created. Discrimination can be a           them unemployable etc.                                               way to get it. I understand there's many people applying for
problem as well as beimg pushed into something you don't deem                                                                                     one job, so they more likely to choose someone with better
sutiable. So basically if you want the right support-WINZ should be the                                                                           qualifications.
place to go in terms of jobs and traning and their espensives without all
the BS.
1. The system encourages people with drug and alcohol addictions to         Lack of government (and business) willingness to let go of the See above.
become long-term beneficiaries instead of insisting that they undertake attitude that clings to the belief that a pool of unemployed is
treatment or work for a living. 2, The same for people with physical,       good for the economy.
mental or intellectual disabilities: The system encourages a sense of
helplessness instead of inclusion. For instance for many people suffering
depression, their illness is exacerbated by exclusion from society and
particularly from the workforce. 2. The system colludes with a morality
that permits young women to make life-style decisions to have children
without the wherewithal ability, or even the intention, to pay for their
offspring's keep. Governments, officials, and parents have for many
decades first accommodated and then encouraged this blatantly
irresponsible attitude. The young women's blasé' attitudes are not
questioned. Indeed, they would be hurt to be identified as irresponsible,
such is their conditioning by their elders. Young men behaving like
tomcats are not (officially) admonished either. Lack of courage to speak
up for self-reliance and personal responsibility can be laid at the door of
governments and their department.

The age at which a benefit is available. Too many young people then       There are not enough jobs for a start. The wages are too low. Because of the absence of trained work ethic I am sure. This
do not have to get out of bed and go to work. It become a very easy       These young people have not been trained to have any work is why a lot of married women are in work places because
way of life.                                                              ethic.                                                        they have good work skills they turn up on time and do not
                                                                                                                                        call in sick at every opportunity
Children grow up with no role model of working to provide for yourself.   Incentive. The benefits and rent-subsidies are too high.        Minimum wage and youth wage laws. Many of these people
Instead, they are taught to be dependent on the State, and how to         There needs to be far greater reward from working,              cannot produce sufficient for an employer to warrant paying
maximise their income from that source. Solo-parents are raising          compared with being on a benefit. No one in NZ is starving to   them the minimum wage. The 90 day hire period is a step
children who go on to do the same.                                        death.                                                          in the right direction. It should be extended in duration to 6
                                                                                                                                          months or 1 year.
First and foremost there are no time limits applied to the conditions of     In my experience attitude not skills or experience is one of an  There is no barrier in reality to the majority of employers in
receipt. There is no requirement for a DPB claiment to divulge the           employers first considerations. Yes skills and experience        hiring long term unemployed so long as their attitude at the
other party, this is simply a nonsense and clearly sends the message         count but in a large number of siutations in the lower skilled   time of application is one that demonstrates a real
that personal responsibility is of no consequence. This is PC BS !! and is   area it is attitude. Attitude comes in many forms; 1st it is     willingness to work and there is at the very least an outward
the genesis of a large proportion of the societal problems we face today.    personal presentation at the time of interview and most          display of enthusiasm and a genuine desire to succeed in the
No requirements for those who can, being compelled to work for the           employers will make their decision within the first few          application. Having employed many nationalities in lower
payment of the tax payers support. Insufficient control of the current       minutes of the interview based on how the person presents.       and semi skilled positions a lack of and grasp of the English
system governing how recipients apply for work. eg; no requirement for       2nd: An obivous willingness to want the job. The numbers of      language and customs is not always a barrier (as is so often
recipients to present themselves in a manner that encourages                 beneficiaries that appear at interviews clearly hung over,       rolled out as an excuse by those who support the
employers to at least consider them for work. In some cases welfare          covered in tatoos, dirty clothes and in some cases clearly       continuation of the existing outmoded system) if a real
staff are being intimidated by recipients, gang affiliates in the well       lacking any knowledge of personal hygiene is staggering.         positive attitude exists by the applicant and they are
recognised recognised areas. This aspect requires regular changing of                                                                         reasonably well presented then they will have as good a
case managers and staff who are confronted by these malcontents.                                                                              chance as anyone. To often those that don't wish to work
                                                                                                                                              capitalise on the knowledge that if they portray a lack of
                                                                                                                                              enthusiasm and attend the interviews showing a scant
                                                                                                                                              disregard for personal presentation they will likely fail and
                                                                                                                                              return to their case manager with the story of yet another
                                                                                                                                              unsuccessful application knowing full well they were never
                                                                                                                                              intending to honestly try and secure a position that entailed
Phisical or mental disability or lack of education and skills that the       Lack of skills. Having failed to thrive in our education system. Concerns about whether they will come to work and know
economy requires. Or lack of knowing how to aquire the education or          Truency. Not being aware of how important education is to a what it is required to be a consistant employee. Lack of
skills to be employable.                                                     persons chances in life and employment are. Not enough           education and skills.
                                                                             emphasis by families and society on children going to school
                                                                             every day and achieving at school and going beyond to
                                                                             further education.

Lack of concentration on support to get off the benefit. Calculation         Skills, desire, accessibility, history of work. Very hard to get a   Risk sums it up. It is more risky to hire a long term
formulae can be seen to encourage increasing dependence to generate          role compared to someone who has a work histroy and or the           beneficiary than someone who is in or recently has been in
increasing income. Excessively high 'marginal' tax rates when beginning      right skills. Also need to be able to arrange the basics such as     work. The ability to use a probation period and/or have
the process of getting of a benefit can present an insurmountable            transport, childcare etc.                                            enhanced support provided to the employee or the employer
hurdle to taking the first steps to leaving the benefit.                                                                                          in the transition phase should help here. It will always be
                                                                                                                                                  hard to get people to hire someon with no history when
                                                                                                                                                  someone with history is available.
Work and Income staff offer benefits as an entitlement. The regular    The lack of a requirement to make an effort. WINZ regularly              Long-term beneficiaries can't be relied upon to turn up to
weekly benefit income is habit-forming and becomes regarded as wages has to force beneficiaries to respond by cutting off their                 work every day, to work consistently at a task, to take
rather than welfare. Recipients don't need to get out of bed in the    benefit.                                                                 direction, to co-operate with colleagues. Tobacco, alcohol,
morning, don't need to make an effort to look presentable, therefore                                                                            and drug habits have weakened them to the extent that they
lose the work habit, and soon become incapable of work, as is shown by                                                                          lack the physical stamina required to work. Sometimes the
Allied Workforce's comment that most beneficiaries fail drug tests.                                                                             employer has to get them out of bed in the morning to get
                                                                                                                                                them on the job. I have also seen a person who was on an
                                                                                                                                                invalid's benefit working virtually fulltime but who refused to
                                                                                                                                                become an on-the-books fulltime worker because he would
                                                                                                                                                have to give up his benefit.

Low skilled recipients earn more on a benefit than they can possibly       Location of available work, childcare, low self-confidence, low      Minimum wage - those with low skill levels might not be
earn at a minimum wage job so there is little financial incentive to work. level of skills and experience.                                      worth paying that amount. Reliability - Will they turn up on
Starting young on a benefit makes it harder to stop. Adding more                                                                                time and work diligently with a good attitude? Easier to look
children when already on a benefit. Long term availability creates sense                                                                        for someone with a track record of previous employment.
of entitlement. Young people are having children to get out of the
family home and tax payers are then paying to set them up in a house.
Parents are responsible for providing for their student children to a
much older age. Why does this attitude not apply to children having
children? There might be a lot less DPB parents if they could not use it
as a way to independence from parents.

Giving sickness benefits to drug addicts and alchoholics - these people       Fear of failure, lack of experience of job interviews, lack of    An attitude that the person 'must be a slacker' The huge
may well be unable to work but they should be compelled to attend             presentable clothing for interview, need for assistance filling   nubmers of people looking for work mean employers can be
treatment in order to recieve benefits. (I know we do not have enough         in forms. Lack of jobs in some areas.Lack of willingness to try   extremely picky. Community/state created employment
treatment centres, but building these will creat jobs). The lack of linking   new things.                                                       especially for beneficiaries would remove this problem.
effort to benefits. After 3 months on a benefit people can decome
disheartened and stop looking for work (or there is no work in their
area). Community job creation schemes should be put into place where
there are realistically no chances of people gaining employment as it is
better for the state to pay wages than benefits. For example planting
community veggie gardens, painting community walls and fences with
murals, helping out at local school with reading, sports, arts, cultural
“It’s hard to get well when you’re constantly needed to prove you’re  Employment is highly competitive, employers frequently see          At mentioned above large gaps in employment are a negative
sick” Frontline workers need to have a mind to how they interact with long periods of no work as a reason to turn applicants down.        factor in the decision to hire someone. Generally speaking
sickness and disabled beneficiaries. Going through the process of                                                                         employers would probably prefer not to take the risk in hiring
‘proving’ ones incapacity is a very unpleasant experience and may                                                                         someone who may have been out of work for some time.
encourage unwellness.

people don't stay on the benefit for fun, it's a demeaning poverty         lack of hope lack of wardrobe financial disincentives people   I believe employers should be able to offer people part time
inducing expereinece. High unemployment, low literacy, and other           need to be matched with jobs they want to do not just be       work to build up their work fitness and also be able to offer
wider social factors keep people on the benefit also the fact that people used as factory fodder                                          these employees literacy and numeracy programs if needed
if they do start to get part time work lose so much of their benefit which                                                                as well as other skill development so that hiring someone
is the only safety net (although inadequate) many people have. People                                                                     isn't a cost to the employer but is a social investment by the
fear coming off the benefit and having to struggle to get back on it.                                                                     government

Re sickness, mental health issues, I believe that the 6 week stand down     Lack of confidence, no incentive through low wages and the    Long term beneficiaries tend to have poor work ethic as they
should be abolished. The fear of failing in the workforce and not being     fact that employment can reduce their income after            have not been in the workforce for a long time and have had
able to access the benefit for 6 weeks- stops them from trying to find      expenses related to travel etc. compared to what they would   no expectation that they should have to work 8 hours or
work. People not willing to accept jobs that they feel they are not         receive on a benefit where they are not required to do        more a day like the majority of the working public. This can
suited to regardless of whether they are capable of carrying out the job.   anything for their income.                                    cause them to be overwhelmed by the requirements of full
                                                                                                                                          time employment.
•	 n increasing attitude among a lot of our beneficiary clients that “We’ll    C
                                                                              •	lients who say after going to work, sorting out childcare etc     L                                 P
                                                                                                                                                •	ack of work skills and training •	oor or no work habits,
get W & I to pay our power etc…. it is our right to get this” •	 e had a                                                P
                                                                              they get more money on the benefit •	rompt processing of                                 S
                                                                                                                                                timeliness, attitude •	ome employers do not understand the
client recently, who presented perfectly well and was working but on his      changes to benefits when clients are working and receiving a                                               D
                                                                                                                                                needs of some clients with disabilities •	 iscrimination in the
own admission chose to only work part time so he could retain his                                                             C
                                                                              benefit and their earnings exceed the limit •	ase Managers        workforce
benefit and did not want to work full time despite theri being the option     need to be trained specifically on how to work with people
at work                                                                                                        A
                                                                              with disabilities or ill health •	 lcohol and drug use is
                                                                              common among long term beneficiaries •	 etter access to
                                                                              work skill training for beneficiaries •	ome clients with
                                                                              disabilities face discrimination applying for work and in the

                                                                              More concerned about deaf people participated in tertiary      No known research on this issues.
                                                                              education that often course module often too short and too
                                                                              fast the whole while studying in classes as do not have time
                                                                              to adapt knowledge quickly these are Not possible to speed
                                                                              up learning would not work on deaf people as well most deaf
                                                                              people prefer take time to adapt rather than quick adapt as
                                                                              has problem in the past hasn't help very well as I raised with
                                                                              this concerned has been ignored too long. As a reason is deaf
                                                                              people preference is take to adapt slowly as one case in
                                                                              Christchurch Polytechnic has set up specially for deaf only
                                                                              course on administration only happened once then
                                                                              discontinued since so. No know reason for discontinuance
                                                                              was given.

Bureaucracy | The need to adhere to policy & procedure rather than            Govt. Focus on Cost to Taxpayer vs People as Assets Why           Power & Control issues: Employment as we know it is going
provide individualized, sincere service for beneficiary's. While I am sure    not focus on peoples talent's and strengths, their interests,     the way of the dinosaur. The future of the knowledge
there are people employed within the system that do care and work to          passion and values rather than just railroading people into       economy will see more and more people becoming self
provide sincere and effective service they are limited in their ability to    unfulfilled work in order to improve the cost to tax payer.       employed, contractors freelancers and business owners.
affect change due to the bureaucracy that pervades the public service.        Lack of awareness of existing tools to help match people          Employers need to realise that it work today is about
                                                                              with volunteer work experience, paid work and skill building      collaborative partnerships not hierarchy, authority and
                                                                              opportunities based on their talents and strengths, passion       control ~ leave that for the military.
                                                                              and values.
The many loopholes in being able to gain a benefit in the first place.       Lack of motivation.                                                    None if the individual is sincerely wanting to work. The work
Once on the treadmill it is easier to maintain a lifestyle using the benefit                                                                        ethic is lost within the first three months of benefit
as a prop.                                                                                                                                          dependency. Break this cycle and 50% of beneficiaries would
                                                                                                                                                    be back in full time employment by their own volition.

Stop Involving GPs to manage Sickness Beneficies , Child Disabilty             Poor skill sets and age - there are alot of 55 -64 year old          I think this is obvious - possible criminal records . As i said
Allowance and Invalids Beneficies. I am a GP and work in a Maori Health        Sickness Beneficiaries hanging in until they are 65. Forensic        earlier the stigma of unemployment. Not working for a long
Organisation in Rotorua. Asking GPs to manage sickness beneficiaries           records . Poor information about the types of jobs available. I      time is not natural or healthy . In the cave days or in a
does not work . There is too much secondary gain , we do little to help        would like to see more promotion of older people working in          subsistance type ecomony you would perish ! . I think the
these people medically - they usually only come every 3 months ,               our community so that people in the 50 + age group can see           long term unemployed need to be case managed very closely
attempts to move them off a Sickness Benefit usually end with abusive          what is available and what can be rewarding work. I am some          to get them into work - ? work subsidies .They will need alot
confrontation , sometimes intimidation, and have a negative impact on          patients - Maori men in their 50s who are ex bush men that           of help.
any therapeutic relationship. The "path of least resistance " is usually       now care for high needs patients in care and they do a great
taken and their benefit is continued. Some patients can be managed             job. People need their horizons broadened and some
well - short term illness. GPs should be given an option to refer on any       stereotypes broken down. There are genuinely people in the
Sickness Beneficiary they cannot effectively manage themselves. WINZ           50 + who cannot do 40 hours /week. Encourage part time
Designated Doc system is ineffctive and slow. I have alot of Sickness          work and get people involved. They often then want to
Benefit patients . The difficult groups to manage are 1) the criminals -       increase their hours when they see the financial rewards.
most will ask for the SB as soon as they are out of jail - usually on the
basis of alcohol and drug isues ( despite councelling in jail ) , depression
or other mental health issue , or pain . 2) patients claiming to have
alcohol and drug problems - it is difficult to chart their help through
other agencies and this assistance is sporadic. I would like to see
Sickness Benefits being linked to attendance to A+D agencies and the
The common loopholes are not being addressed eg by tying DPB work              The lack of availability of childcare at irregular hours eg public   Beneficiaries who don't have own transport. Can't hire
testing into children's ages successive governments have constantly            holidays, nights, early mornings, emergencies. No mandatory          someone reliant on public transport no matter how good
failed to understand that those who don't want to work will simply have        requriements for fathers or family members to assist in this         they are if your hours are outside public transport hours.
another child to secure and increase their benefit. Self induced               way. Employer prejudices. Employer choice i.e. no matter             Childcare issues when hiring single parents. No incentives to
conditions are now regarded as sicknesses eg alcoholism, drug                  how skilled, motivated or willing a beneficiary is there is no       train people on the job. No incentives to hire a beneficiary
addiction, and qualify for sickness benefits with no requirement that          requirement for an employer to choose them over other                over someone chaning jobs.
recipients seek counselling or treatment. So we are in effect funding          applicants, many of whom are simply changing jobs. Married
them to maintain their habits. Extra children conceived on a DPB attract       women taking up too many vancancies that would previously
more money. Entitlement should be capped at the children one comes             have been open to unemployed people. Transport
onto a benefit with. If extra children are conceived while in receipt of       requirements i.e. more and more jobs are requiring people to
the DPB there should be no extra money. WINZ is unable to sanction             have a car. Hours required - Some jobs require hours before
obvious lifestyle beneficiaries with mandatory cuts, compulsory training       and after public transport hours. Unwillingness of employers
or making them take a job, and in fact are not only reluctant to but           to train people on the job.
actually give them special treatment not available to others. An
example of this is the Harris family who have been given advances to
fund the upkeep of luxury cars and a swimming pool, and are allowed to
phone in instead of presenting at WINZ because of anti social behavior
that should be dealt with by the police.
1. A feeling that you will be penalized if you try (and I have had it said to   1. Work and Income, and their draconian policies. 2. Low             1. Unstable Job Market. 2. No Stability in the New Zealand
me by case managers), that "if you try an work you will be reassessed,          benefit amount, people cannot afford clothes let alone               Economy. 3. Need people with relevant qualifications, that
and dropped off your x benefit". 2. Being told that you need to take any        transport for interviews. 3. No barrier time, i.e once your          want to be there and earn the wage they are providing. 4.
work that is out there, there is no skills and condition matching, the only     working benefit cut off, and you have to play catch up if your       Skills Matching. 5. Why hire a beneficiary when you have so
concern is getting you off the books, no matter how unsuitable the job          on a low wage, and your not paid for say two weeks, that is a        many skilled people unemployed?
is. 3. Benefit amount is too low to ensure basic standard of living, so the     long time between bills. You should have get a full time job
sick get even more stressed and sicker. 4. Case Managers with zero              and you get three months of full benefit for the change over,
empathy and people skills. 5. Useless courses, provided by people               just so you start on an even keel, plus a bonus if you make it
milking the government cash cow, which has no relevance to the real             past the three months trial. 4. A benefit is security, in this job
world and modern employment environment. 6. If you are highly                   market there is no such thing as long term security. 5. THE
qualified, there is no help finding employment, you are not eligible for        MOST VALID POINT IS THAT THERE ARE BUGGER ALL DECENT
any assistance or any courses.                                                  JOBS OUT THERE FOR PEOPLE.

                                                                                The economy- lack of jobs. Low wages- disincentive to work. The attitudes and prejudices of employers. Failure to
                                                                                Difficulty in accessing training without incurring debt.    acknowledge the skills required to survive on a benefit. lack
                                                                                Difficulty accessing high quality childcare.                of training available.
Income support should be based on need for support. Help to get        The biggest barrier is that the criteria used for assigning         Documented in the report. Long term Beneficiaries need
people into work should be based on: 1. desire of the person to work   benefits are completely unhelpful. UEB is fine, they are            intensive case management and graduated return to work to
                                                                       clearly people who are fit and available for work who will be
2. likelihood that interventions will lead the person into work 3. Age (                                                                   successfully get them off a benefit. I can see no reason why
the younger a person who may be able to work is the more effort        helped to find work. Sickness Benefit is accurate for some          an employer would take the risk of employing a long term
should go in to trying to get them into work) 4. There are major       people (Labourer with a hernia awaiting operation) but in my        beneficiary unless it was very clear that the reason for having
financial barriers. The effective marginal taxation rate for a person  view is otherwise significantly flawed. The diagnosis bears no      been on a benefit had been well and truly dealt with.
moving off a benefit into some part time work is very high (when you   relationship to "barrier to work" (for every person on an A/B
add in benefit abatement) and they usually incur extra costs (transportbecause of a diagnosis I could point to a person with the
clothing) that can take up much of what little increase in income they same diagnosis who is in work.) I would suggest that all on
may get.                                                               benefits not on a UEB should be graded according to the
                                                                       extent of barriers to work, taking into account all factors. This
                                                                       process would be best carried out by an agency other than
                                                                       the one responsible for providing the benefit. The benefit
                                                                       should be granted based on need for support. The issue of
                                                                       when the two processes are linked needs to be thought
                                                                       through clearly. If we do not have enough resource to help
                                                                       those wanting to get back to work, it may be most cost
                                                                       effective to ignore sanctions for those not currently wanting
                                                                       to engage. It may be more effective to provide a small
                                                                       incentive (extra payment) for being engaged with looking for
The assumption that the government will always pick up any slack.      The differential between the benefit and paid work is too           Long term beneficiaries carry a stigma of being unemployed
Existing family members already receiving benefits and the epxectation narrow; therefore no real incentive to move to paid                 for a long period and are therefore unlikely to come across as
that this will continue for the next generation.                       employment. Lack of self esteem. Lack of expectation from           wanting to work. The current unemployment levels
                                                                       friends and family.                                                 encourage employers to be picky when choosing employees.
                                                                      Deaf peoples are often most barrier in some workplace like
                                                                      construction, engineering and administration as well trade
                                                                      people prove hardest hit due restriction cover by current
                                                                      legislation due safety, telecommunication technology always
                                                                      hardest part they face present situation. Most deaf people
                                                                      has history of low income as evidently few-has gains good
                                                                      income. it should not be excuse made by an employers as it
                                                                      should be set up working party to overcame barrier so this
                                                                      would give deaf people greater choice of workplace to be
                                                                      employed. In tertiary education always has problem with
                                                                      funding and NZSL interpreter arrangement was a major factor
                                                                      in some part of NZ as has put this in very limited resources
                                                                      too often as some case has leave incompleted grade while in
                                                                      study too long. Past research has not overcome the problem
                                                                      due lack of action and proposals were not widely
                                                                      implemented due delay too great to be ignored. Workbridge
                                                                      not effective enough to deaf people to gains employment
                                                                      due slow, lack of actions well too much interfere on deaf
                                                                      clients decision as well has problem with an NZSL interpreter
                                                                      booking system within workbridge too often without
Nothing. Every recipient must go through regular six month reviews,   1. Government Agencies who ignore the socio-economic            * Cost of training. I have heard it costs on average 6 times
subject to termination should they not meet given criteria.           structure of New Zealand. That is agencies which: - * focus     more to engage an employee than it does to train an existing
                                                                      too narrowly on employment as the "silver bullet solution"      employee! * Lack of confidence in the prospective employee;
                                                                      when the needs of family care givers & those they care for      * Loss of sales, goodwill, customers where an employee falls
                                                                      dictate otherwise and * ignore the fact that self employment    sick or becomes chronically ill;
                                                                      may be another option (95% of New Zealand Businesses
                                                                      employ less than 5 employees); 2. Employer attitudes; 3.
                                                                      The practical time & resource limitations placed on family
                                                                      care givers largely responsible for the care of those with
                                                                      chronic mental & physical illnesses; 4. Lack of skills,
                                                                      expertise on the part of the unemployed.
Firstly, I think the way people are dealt with needs improving. When        If I had a health problem that was somewhat fluctuant (say         See above-would you really be keen to take on someone
WINZ staff communicate with people in a disrespectful and judgemental       depression or chronic pain), so I needed to work flexibly          whose health makes it likely they will be absent a good
way that only reinforces low self esteem and sense of worthlessness.I       around my illness, would I find an employer who would              deal?What incentives are there for employers to be creative
know it is hard (I work in health and know all about being abused by the    accomodate that? Doubtful. The way things are organised at         and help to employ people in remote places or who are too ill
public!) but they need to improve their people skills. I think there is a   the moment sets people up to fail. If you return people to         or disabled to get into work regularly?
perception that if employment is started but then for whatever reason       work and they take too much time off or are "unreliable"
ends (your 90 day trial period for example) then it is too problematic to   because of illness they will be back on a benefit very
get benefit support-so why bother?? The issue of families is a hard one,    quickly,because employers cannot/will not suatain that.
but I do find it astounding that a solo stay at home woman with 4 kids      There is a huge emphasis now on managing work place
gets more than I do as a health professional working 40 hours a             absence with a very clear punative message because of the
week.Parenthood is vitally important, and I think there needs to be         costs associated. Again, if people with health issues fear the
more work done on helping redress abit of the balance here. I also          job won't work out and they have to face the process of re-
think things like housing benefit need looking at-people with long term     applying for benefit, it is not going to encourage them to take
health issues can be severely affected by their environment, and the        a chance. I think you should consider ways of making self
cost of good quality accomodation is not supported by the amount of         employment or work from home easier for these people; that
benefit available. If you improve people's living circumstances, you can    way, they can manage their time and symptoms more
improve their health and likelihood to work.                                easily.Training/re-training, business start up grants ( you
                                                                            might want to investigate the availability of that by the way-it
                                                                            is not as described on the WINZ website), etc. You need to
                                                                            work creatively with employers-why are companies
Unemployment Access by Employers to Crimnal Records                         Employers able to ask for crimnal records. Employers               Crimnal Records Perceived attitude to laziness and lack of
                                                                            should only be allowed to access police records when a             motivationj
                                                                            person is a paedophile or murder or such. By allowing
                                                                            Employers to access crimnal/police records, New Zealand is
                                                                            preventing a large percentage of the population from
                                                                            working and this action is creating a Population who have no
                                                                            other choice than ending up on Welfare for the rest of their
                                                                            lives. New Zealand should look at some European countries
                                                                            fo the answer to question.
What aspects of the current benefit system are working well Are there aspects of the benefit system that are outdated   Should the scope and nature of the current benefit categories
and should be retained?                                     and have not kept pace with the changing nature of work and be retained?

Open-Ended Response                                                Open-Ended Response                                               Open-Ended Response
That it is available to any of us whenever we find ourselves in    I think the system has adjusted a great deal over the years.      That is difficult to know. Perhaps one 'hardship' or 'relief'
difficult circumstances (and we all do sooner or later). Just as   But I am sure there will always be a number of people who         benefit could be contemplated for all circumstances. I think
the Student Allowance and Superannuation are available to          are set on cheating the system, and sharing care of children is   the invalids benefit is both open to abuse and does provide
all.                                                               one of them (to the detriment, often, of the children). I think   for people who really need it.
                                                                   that people over 60 should be encouraged to work 4 days pw
                                                                   (in fact everyone should!) and perhaps there should be some
                                                                   sort of top-up or financial advantage, as this can be very
                                                                   advantageous to employers (eg much less sick leave). I'm not
                                                                   sure how the system works these days ofr people in artistic
                                                                   professions, but they need to be helped to survive between
                                                                   jobs. I think the NZ benefit system is probably much better
                                                                   than many.

All of it.                                                         Someone should update the records of them on a monthy             Yes. Keep on going with them.
Disability allowances.                                             The system was set up in a time of full employment when a
                                                                   family could live on a single wage.
Training opportunities and funding for courses.             yes, there's been too much cut-backs in training courses and Generally, although it could do with some tweaking.
                                                            support for education, including university education.

aspects that encourage empowerment for individuals to seek Yes - NZ population is younger and more multicultural. The     There needs to be a serious look at hard working people who
work, get married                                          changing nature of families is that it is now seem normal to   pay taxes and never receive a benefit too long. For example -
                                                           be a single mother and raise a child on the benefit - it       working mothers who on on maternity leave should be
                                                           becomes an incentive for many young women to have              looked after. Working mothers should have their level of
                                                           children out of wedlock leading to many more social adverse    taxes already paid to government and be rewarded to stay
                                                           for themself and the child Youth benefit should be omitted,    home for 14weeks and get 'appropriate' maternity leave
                                                           and you should only receive a benefit for 1 year and after     benefit and provides and incentive for them to stay home
                                                           that you don't receive it. These young people haven't even     and look after their children. Gov't should look at the BIG
                                                           paid taxes yet and they already get benefits and get it for    picture and identify contributing citizens and invest in them
                                                           long periods of time.                                          as working mothers desire to go back to work Why should
                                                                                                                          working mothers (professionals in particular) feel pressured
                                                                                                                          to go back to work even after 6 weeks inorder keep finances
                                                                                                                          in tact whilst many on the dpb continue to receive a benefit
                                                                                                                          and have no desire to work but keep on having children. NOT
At least we do have safety net. However I think living in the   I think that if the 'Widow' and 'Women Alone' benefit that   Yes as I know of it, but I interested in other benefit receivers
city is much dearer and the accommodation benefit should        exists for women. Why doesn't this entitlement exist for men outlooks are.
be higher and transport cost may need to be considered.         as well as more men are now caregivers, househusbands and
More hardship assistance and social intervention for those      not necessary the breadwinners?
who are without much support. For example a
parent/caregiver whom has an active father/mother who
sees his/her children regularly will be better off than a
parent/caregiver who has less or no support from the other
parent. Whether this is the result of the other parent simply
moving on and becoming less attached or such discord within
the parents or family relationship such as challenging
child(ren) that don't want contact with the other parent
renders a very heavy responsibility of the primary

It all needs a major overhaull.                                 The Domestic Purposes Benefit should be abolished as a            No, it is time for a major overhaul to change the dynamics
                                                                stand-alone benfit and assistance should be provided through that have created 'entrenched' dependency, so that the
                                                                temporary support attached to one of the other main               system focuses on work.
                                                                benefits, in a similar way to the system in most other
                                                                countries. Sole parents should be required to work (once
                                                                their babies are a little older) - that should be the over-riding
                                                                purpose of their welfare support. And benefit payments
                                                                should be based on the number of children when a sole
                                                                parent registers for support.
                                                                    •	he inadequacy of benefit levels, but as your terms of       Yes, although it would be beneficial to reintroduce the
                                                                    reference don’t include the adequacy of benefit levels or     discretionary Special Benefit, for those experience deeper
                                                                    Working for Families, a discussion of the may not be relevant levels of hardship.
                                                                    to the WGG (but see response to Q16) •	he insidious
                                                                    unwritten policy of reducing benefit levels to make work
                                                                    more attractive, despite the negative outcomes associated
                                                                    with low real incomes •	 batement threshold and abatement
                                                                    rates for income earned by those on the Domestic Purposes
                                                                    Benefits that were set in the early 1980s.

I feel there is very little in the current system that is working   No. If anything society has changed to keep pace with the
well and should be retained.                                        benefit system when it should be the other way around.
The existence of the benefit system has made it possible for    Yes – the stand-down period creates a system that is
people in unfortunate circumstances to survive and to           weighted in favour of long term dependency. For many years
maintain their families. That aspect of the welfare system is   governments of all persuasions have indicated that we need a
something of which our society should be proud.                 “flexible workforce”, and that people should expect to
                                                                change their jobs several times during their working life.
                                                                Those job changes cause significant short term problems for
                                                                many people, and the current system does little to assist
                                                                many people during transitions between jobs and
                                                                discourages long term beneficiaries from seeking short term
                                                                employment. It seems unfair to me that a taxpayer may have
                                                                been supporting the benefit scheme for several years, but
                                                                then receives nothing from it when faced with a few weeks
                                                                unemployment between jobs. If a long term beneficiary takes
                                                                on a short term job, they may lose more in the subsequent
                                                                stand down period than they gain from their wages.
The Independent Youth Benefit should be retained as it                                                                              We would oppose any measures that would put children of
provides income support to young people who are without                                                                             beneficiaries at greater risk of poverty and economic
parental support, or who have suffered family breakdown.                                                                            hardship. Children have no control over their economic
Contrary to some perceptions, it is not an easy benefit to                                                                          circumstances and there is accordingly no justification for
obtain and relatively small numbers of young people receive                                                                         placing their welfare at risk as a result of their parent or
it, many of whom have been discharged from CYFS custody.                                                                            caregiver's employment status. Therefore we consider that,
This benefit provides an important safety net for these young                                                                       in accordance with Article 3 of UNCROC, that in any decision
people. However, due to CYPF Act only providing care and                                                                            or determination regarding a benefit which provides for the
protection for children aged under 17, 17 year olds are still                                                                       welfare a dependent child, the welfare and best interests of
vulnerable if they are homeless and not in an education or                                                                          the child must be the paramount consideration.
vocational programme, as they are not covered by the care
and protection jurisidiction and fall outside the IYB criteria.
We consider that the Social Security Act should be amended
to provide for a specific emergency benefit for young people
who fit into this catagory.

New Zealand has a very strong social security system and our      The establishment of the DPB to provide income security for       People on benefits are not a homogenous group and the
social security expenditure is slightly less than the OECD        sole parents was an enlightened response by the 1972 (check       different categories of benefits recognise the different
average. New Zealand’s taxation-based social security system      ) Royal Commission on Social Policy that recognised the                                            T
                                                                                                                                    group’s needs and situations. 	he changes to the Social
provides a guaranteed level of income protection that is          changing nature of families, society and relationships. The       Security Act in 2007 were regarded as establishing the base
universal and transparent. New Zealand is emerging now            DPB was very important in enabling women some financial           for a core single benefit on the assumption that the
from the biggest financial crisis for over 70 years. From just    independence and support and the ability to leave difficult       complexity of the current system would be reduced by
under 17,500 on the unemployment benefit in May 2008,             and sometimes violent marriages and relationships. While          replacing all the main benefits with a single benefit
there are 63,000 on the unemployment benefit as of now.           there have been dramatic changes in society and changes in        containing one set of criteria. But the complexity in the
The impact of the recession will continue to be felt for some     men’s and women’s roles in society, it is not clear what the      system comes from the applications that beneficiaries must
time for workers displaced from the labour market. There          issues paper refers to when it states that the benefit system     make for supplementary assistance which were introduced
are some very positive examples of WINZ and MSD initiatives       has not kept pace with the changing nature of work and            after the benefit cuts in 1991. Potentially a single benefit
over the last four years that have produced good outcomes         families. We are very concerned that initiatives being            may just increase complexity because of the need to have
for workers who have been made redundant. There has been          suggested as part of the response by the WWG and recently         add-on allowances e.g. child care sickness and disability
union involvement in a number of those initiatives. MSD           introduced through the Social Security Amendment Bill will        allowances. The fear of beneficiaries was that the
and WINZ labour market matching processes have reduced            make it even more difficult for solo parents, who are             development of a single benefit was a disguised way of
unemployment and placed many people back in work                  predominantly women, to manage the multiple demands on            reducing all benefits rates to the levels of the unemployment
without requiring time out of the workforce. While New            them and that work testing will force them in low-paid and        benefit. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that a single
Zealand’s unemployment rates are high now, the steady and         precarious work. It will be no advance, and there is a            core benefit systems would work better or do anything to
strong decline of the unemployment rate from 2002 to 2007         considerable risk, if work testing increases the number of solo   improve outcomes for people on benefits.
was the result of strong economic conditions and an active        parents in low paid, part time, poor quality work which will
labour market policy approach. Active labour market policies      put children at greater risk because of inadequate support
It is essential that parents of disabled children should be well- The assessment of disablity, invalid and sickness benefit has   Simplification would be very helpful.
supported and it is preferable for sole mothers with pre-         always been very variable and could be evened out over the
school children to not be required to work.                       country. As suggested, the focus needs to be on capacity to
                                                                  work rather than incapacity, but the lack of jobs and
                                                                  flexibility within the job market is a difficulty.

need some system but it needs to be supported more by           Voluntary work should be valued and encouraged
other activities to support people into work
The case management with a consistent key worker is          Yes. (1)The benefit system has not adjusted the provision          (1)There needs to be more provision made for food,
working well.                                                to those on the benefit to allow them to live with dignity and     transport and child care and power costs. (2)A single
                                                             to be able to sustain a standard of living that allows them the    benefit for all without additional payments for certain
                                                             civil and political rights associated with a modern democracy.     categories of beneficiaries would be a step backwards. At
                                                             For example, increased costs of living such as increased costs     present there is recognition of the costs of long-term benefit
                                                             of electricity, increased rental costs (such as those associated   receipt built into Invalids benefits, and a small additional sum
                                                             with GST increases) are not adjusted for which means that          to recognise the cost of raising children for sole parents.
                                                             the benefit does not provide sufficient funding today to allow     While these could be stripped out and added on separately,
                                                             those on the benefit to eat and to attend to their health and      this would increase the chances of recipients not getting their
                                                             their dental cares. By the time rent and power costs are paid      full and proper entitlements, and would further increase the
                                                             for there is insufficient money for food for a week. (2)Nor        complexity it is implied the working group would prefer to
                                                             does it provide sufficiently to allow the beneficiary freedom      reduce.
                                                             of movement – transport costs are not provided for. These
                                                             difficulties are particularly true for those who are sole
                                                             mothers who are unable to afford the cost of transporting
                                                             their children to visit their father, relatives or friends or to
                                                             take them to the library to provide books for them to read.

Superannuation and those aspects of ACC which relate to the The whole system needs to be overhauled to relate to the            Yes
original scheme                                             21st century. In particular it should recognise the changing
                                                            family structure, family needs, and the changing labour
                                                            market. Careers are no longer "for life" so benefits need to
                                                            recognise that nearly everyone will have a period in their
                                                            work life where they will need support. Again, the benefit
                                                            system needs to put children's needs at the centre.
-Though it appears unwieldy the fact that add ons ensure   - Yes, the very requirement to obtain work when the             - Overall, yes
that people's individual or family needs are taken into    workplace itself has changed so radically andy more small
account e.g. accomodation supplement; - That some          businesses it up - the nature of work itself had radically
without ability to work at all are adequately supported    changed. In the past it most usually referred to full time paid
without fear of eing hounded into work that they are       employment, but that cannot now be taken forgranted.
incapable of delivering;

The aspect that a person in crisis can get a benefit       Its not outdated to have case managers and this system          Essentially yes, but if a living alone beneficery pays Auckland
                                                           should be put in place again.                                   city market rent for a one bedroom flat ( e g $240 p w, then
                                                                                                                           after rent, phone, power and doctor etc don't have quite
                                                                                                                           enough for food. GST should be immediately taken off non-
                                                                                                                           processed food. Also G P's are very expensive in some areas
                                                                                                                           and dentists are too expensive in all areas. Could the
                                                                                                                           members of The Welfare Working Group please take a piece
                                                                                                                           of paper and a pen and go to a Budgeter in a Budgeting
                                                                                                                           Service Office and list living expenses so they understand.
                                                                                                                                      VicLabour believes that New Zealand needs to do better than
                                                                                                                                      provide a mere safety net of last resort which compensates
                                                                                                                                      only for minimum living requirements. New Zealand can meet
                                                                                                                                      its international legal obligations by providing a broad
                                                                                                                                      welfare system which moves away from the stigma of
                                                                                                                                      ‘benefits’ and towards a rights-based ideology. To this end,
                                                                                                                                      VicLabour would like to see two main changes to the scope
                                                                                                                                      and nature of the benefit system: 1. All benefits are
                                                                                                                                      abolished and replaced with a universal income which is set
                                                                                                                                      at a proportion of the average wage (like Superannuation).
                                                                                                                                      Various top-up awards would be available to those who need
                                                                                                                                      further assistance. A universal income has a work-focussed
                                                                                                                                      and positive rhetoric towards meaningful employment thus
                                                                                                                                      we see it as a crucial step in a progressive welfare system.
                                                                                                                                      2. The scope of ACC is broadened back to its original 1974
                                                                                                                                      intent and is merged with the Ministry of Social Development
                                                                                                                                      to enable one overall hoslistic approach to welfare in New

The differentiation of benefit types which acknowledges the         The abatement regime is very outdated and has not kept            Yes but there is need for a category to recognise those with a
different abilities and barriers of the different client groups     pace at all, the thresholds are very low and discourage more      permanent illness or disability which does not meet the
should be retained, although perhaps some renaming could            than $80 a week income. There needs to be recognition in          definition of severe to qualify for Invalids. There is concern
be helpful. The system of emergency payments and advances           the abatement system that both members of a couple may            also at the structuring of the youth rates of benefit, as well as
which helps to keep beneficiaries less indebted, and lessens        work and there needs to be a couple threshold to recognise        the push to treat people as a couple which can put children
the impacts of the short term money lenders and their high          this. The regime does not recognise the now part time and         into hardship, if the relationship has not evolved to a level
interest rates which hold people in a poverty cycle, should be      casualised nature of work, or that this is often a path to full   where expenses and resources are shared. There is need for
continued and possibly extended to ensure that the MSD goal         time or regular work. There are serious concerns that the         a more comprehensive third tier of assistance which is
of social inclusion is achieved. The Transition to Work             system is not following legal precedents in regard to what        genuinely able to recognise peoples essential costs and
payment which helps people over the hurdle of suitable              constitutes a relationship in the nature of marriage and that     ensure they are able to meet these and maintain a
clothing and transport, and the period between last benefit         women are being put onto joint benefits with partners who         household, as Special benefit was able to do.
and first wage, is an excellent programme which greatly             are not committed and that the children suffer as a result.
assists this transition. It is also useful that there are schemes   The system also lacks cultural understanding especially of the
such as job subsidies which may encourage employers to give         culture of refugees and immigrants, and the structure of their
someone a go, and enterprise allowance which encourages             personal relationships and the power dynamics within these
small business and entrepreneurism                                  relationships. It is important that the increasing fluid nature
                                                                    of relationships can be recognised, perhaps it would be
                                                                    better if benefits were paid on the basis of individual
                                                                    entitlement rather than family type especially when there is
                                                                    no marriage or civil union. The system also seems unable to
                                                                    understand and respond to the impact of domestic violence
While there are certainly improvements that could be made       Yes, the current 'work-first' approach assumes that decent,    Yes
to the current benefit system, its funding from general tax     wellpaid and secure work is available to all that who want it;
revenue (as opposed to an insurance system based on             but this is no longer the reality of the modern labour market,
previous work history) and its needs-based focus should be      where non-standard, part-time, temporary and precarious
retained. These ensure that all New Zealanders requiring        work are far more frequent. This needs to be taken into
assistance are able to apply for a benefit based on need,       account when considering any work-related conditions or
rather than previous work performance or some other work-       penalties placed on benefit recepients.
related criteria. This is necessary because there are some
groups of people (women, people with disabilities, for
example) for which such an insurance-based model would
always be problematic. The current policy of paying half the
married/de facto couple benefit to each partner in this
relationship should be maintained; in some countries (such as
the UK), a partnered benefit is paid only to the male in the
relationship and this has caused major issues for women and
children unable to access this financial assistance. We also
must maintain a separate benefit for sole parents so that
individuals have a real choice about leaving a violent or
otherwise dangerous relationship if they are financially
dependent on the abusive partner.

Ready access to benefit when needed. Emergency dental           There is an assumption that there is a thing called family or     There should be benefits that do not have a work focus as
treatment and food vouchers. Range of benefits Accesss to       community. But the facts are different as there is often no       this pressure is not appropriate until the needs are
Accomodation supplement and Disability Allowance for all.       one a person can access financial or practical assistance         addressed adequately . There is a tendency to move too
Some benefits free from employment focus                        from. This is why the person in need comes to WINZ in the         quickly towards future possibilities and not seeing the
                                                                first place. Often parents and caregivers are alone in what       present situation clearly. Even now Invalid Beneficiaries are
                                                                they do and are left to carry the emotional, practical and        pressured to moving into work although this is not a criteria
                                                                financial burdens of caring and parenting with inadequate         for receipt of this benefit.
                                                                resources and skills. These responsibilities can overide any
                                                                attempts to sustain a job that is external to their domestic
                                                                situation. There are often no opportunities in these
                                                                situations for time out or recreation let alone opportunties to
                                                                improve their situation through their own efforts.
Working for families, should be extended to a better system       (1); Marital status discrimination; eg DPB, "living alone       In part. (See Qu 7)
of a domestic need wage to enable caregivers to take time         regulations". and punitive regulations in eldercare. ie;
out when needed. When parents of small children are               regulations that force elderly married couples to divorce
engeged in the paid workforce it is inevitable that there will    because one partner needs residential care, and has to
be times when family matters will take temporary                  impoverish themselves to get it. This is a "hangover" from the
precedence over workplace duties. Children placed in this         deliberately inhumane UK based principle of "less
situation have their human rights gravely misrepresented, if      eligibility".There are people still alve who remeber being
at all. There is no system in place that caters for this and it   subject to living in these places (workhouses) (closed down in
does all parties involved a major disservice.                     the 1950s) and have suffered extreme abuse as a result.
                                                                  (2); The benefit system does not support the engagement of
                                                                  temporay work for people who are not abble to participate
                                                                  full time, but may wish to keep their skills up to date for the
                                                                  time when they can participate, or have some participation in
                                                                  the workplace accrding to their ability if given the
                                                                  opportunity. The mention of people who are dismissed under
                                                                  the current 90 day bill being subject to benfit standown
                                                                  because the benefit regulations have not been ammended to
                                                                  meet this new situation is alarming.The benefit recipient is
                                                                  economically "punished" for taking on this type of
                                                                  employemt, and punished if they do not. Employers also take
                                                                  advantage of people in this situation by having motivation to
All benefits are working well, there is always a minority who     DPB. There is a sector who are growing up with having           2 categories. 1. Living. 2. Superannuation. Follow this at no
will abuse a situation so that has to be acccepted by             children as their source of income with no intention of         13.
Authorities and dealt with as is now. The best is                 committment to a partner. Unemployment.
Superannuation as it gives dignity as of right, no questions
asked. The worst is the one given to teens who sometimes
use any excuse to leave home and takes away parental
The fact that the benefit system (no matter how degraded - cf
mother of all budgets & tax cuts) is still with us.

It is imperative that those people who are severely              The constant need to provide information and an annual
cognitively impaired, for whom any form of paid work is          medical certificate for these people for whom work will never
impossible, be provided with an ongoing benefit as is            be an option is demeaning and unnecessary. There should be
currently the case.                                              some way of determining those people and setting them
                                                                 apart from those for whom an Invalids benefit may be a
                                                                 temporary solution. The name perhaps could be changed to
                                                                 better reflect the difference. The name "DPB CSI" could also
                                                                 be changed to something more appropriate.

There is very little evidence that there should be any cuts in   The humiliating processes involved in seeking welfare           Am unfamiliar with the exact scope and nature of the current
benefits, so maybe the connection between the different          benefits need to be kept in check                               benefit categories, but I would recommend that no major
agencies and funding bodies should be examined.                                                                                  changes be implemented without there being very clear
                                                                                                                                 evidence of effectiveness of any change for providing
                                                                                                                                 improved welfare support.
Would rather not look at individual parts of current system. See all of the above.                                               A guaranteed minimum income might be a fairer way to
It needs a new philosophy underpinning it that recognises                                                                        update the system eg through a negative income tax. Note
that economic growth and productivity growth and                                                                                 that this was tried in pilot schemes in both the USA and
employment are very closely dependent on a fit, healthy and                                                                      Canada in the late 60s and early 70s when both of these
well educated and supported population. See comments re                                                                          countries were individualistic and capitalist in their practice.
family support above. We need to move towards the Swedish                                                                        In the case of Canada the Government changed and a
model or start to think seriously about the similar Social                                                                       thorough analysis of the results of a 2-3 year trial in a
Investment Model being discussed in Australia and other                                                                          particular town was not completed. A recent fresh look at the
countries in recent years.                                                                                                       results in the light of what is now known about the long term
                                                                                                                                 outcomes for participants showed positive results in terms of
                                                                                                                                 health, education, employment. This was put down to the
                                                                                                                                 increase in general security felt by participants and their
                                                                                                                                 families. This study was done with a matched control group.
                                                                                                                                 The costs of such an approach should be estimated.

I have had positive experiences with employees of WINZ, Job      No one wants to accept that there may not be jobs out there,    I am concerned that people have to appply for loans to have
counselling was good for me, but there was no hope in me         that discrimination is the reason for unemployment, that        dental work done and that we have one health system for
getting a job. Benefit has enabled me to have a decent life,     there is not job security because employment tribunals do       poor and one for rich. I don't know enough to comment any
but if I had had a family I could hardly have survived. I know   not adequately protect people from unfair dismissal.            more. I don't know what all the categories are.
how to live eficiency on a very low income. When I               Restrictions onunions handicap the employee. I don't feel I
developed a heart condition I was helped swiftly and             know enough to give a good answer to this question. My
supported after I had to leave my job through bullying. The      biggest concern is the existence of child poverty that I have
people at the desk who you first meet when entering WINZ         seen.
handle difficult situations very fairly. I have seen how badly
poor eople live in the USA where unemployment becomes a
real nightmare.;; Its much better here in New Zealand and I
am proud to live here.
New Zealand Superannuation and other supports to the       The The benefit system needs to take account of labour           Benefits need to reflect additional costs incurred by those on
elderly                                                    market volatility and the fact that many services which were     Invalids Benefits - who by definition have little chance of
                                                           once free or low cost are now 'user pays'                        returning to work. The same goes for those raising children

National Superannuation operates well and is a model for   Excessive targetting of benefits hinders labour market          The system could be vastly simplified. My preference would
something that could be extended into other areas.         flexibility, It arises from a failure to see that we are moving be for a universal benefit with add-on features depending on
                                                           into a post-industrial era in which people want to work         needs and circumstances.
                                                           autonomously in a variety of areas, some paid, some unpaid,
                                                           in quest of fulfillment and work-life balance.

None of them                                               The most pressing issue is individual entitlement. The           No, a universal allowance that recognises all equally. Why
                                                           accomodation suppliment and the working for families             does a woman with no depndents living on the pension,
                                                           schemes are essentially subsides for employers and should be     recieve more assistance than a younger woman with
                                                           removed. If a family with two working parents still needs        dependants. Pensioners are overpaid in relation to other
                                                           State support to pay the rent, then CLEARLY salary and wages     beneficiaries, this urgently needs to be addressed.
                                                           are too low, and this amounts to a billion dollars pa. subsidy
                                                           to employers in accomodation suppliments and working for
                                                           families is another billion dollar plus subsidy for employers.

The Integrated Service Coordinators do an awesome job.     I think the abatement thresholds need to be raised so people Yes. I believe it is important to retain benefits such as DPB,
                                                           can earn more before losing their benefits. I think it is      invalids, sickness, unemployment, unsupported child etc.
                                                           unrealistic to expect a woman's new partner to take on the
                                                           financial responsibility for her children from previous
                                                           relationships & that the child support system should be
                                                           strengthened to ensure non-custodial parents are taking
                                                           financial responsibility for their children. I also think more
                                                           support should be available to two income families where
                                                           one partner has lost their job or had to give up work due to
The DPB is important because it enables people to escape         The focus needs to be shifted to rehabilitation rather than    The overall design of the system is fine. It just needs to work
from either violent, abusive or failed relationships. There is   the current open ended welfare system. Beneficiaries may in properly.
no evidence that children are harmed by child care and there     the future be required to change their location if there is no
should be an expectation that the parent seeks paid              work where they live. The benefit system will have to
employment. This is particularly important for young single      support any costs involved. The responsible parent
women. It is unacceptable that such claimants can get away       contributions needs an urgent review and it is a scandal that
with refusing to name the other parent of the child.             so many parents, mainly men, can escape their obligations.

Sickness benefit where the "person" is genuinely sick and        National super is being paid on many cases to those who        Probably.
unable to work.There appear to be many situations where          don't really need it even though they qualify. DPB is
the person is milking the system. Disability benefit.            probably being milked. Years ago young mothers stayed at
National super                                                   home with their parents. This could still happen, and funds
                                                                 would then be saved not peying rentals andfurniture and
                                                                 other allowances.
not sure                                                       The impersonal and humiliating aspect of visiting a WINZ      not sure but one aspect is definitely missing: there is no
                                                               office.                                                       allowance whatsoever for long term carers like myself, who
                                                                                                                             are unable to hold a job because they need to be available
                                                                                                                             24/7 for their disabled family member. My husband's salary
                                                                                                                             is just above the cut off point for the DPB CSI but not enough
                                                                                                                             to cover our mortgage, daily living costs and cost of our son's
                                                                                                                             disability. Other welfare systems in the world, such as in
                                                                                                                             France, provide a benefit similar to our Parental Leave benefit
                                                                                                                             or the financial support foster parents receive in NZ.

It is clear that in a progressive and modern society, we should Entitlement should be replaced with a clearer focus on who   Single benefit for all people who are not workign. We should
care a protect the most vulnerable members of society.          we are supporting, why, for how long and at what level.      have an insurance type scheme similar to the ACC to define
Therefore the system should be a step up not a lifestyle        We are not investing enough into the people who need         more clearly the actuarial risk for the person and the funder
                                                                "massive" support to take them from a lifelong dependency    of the system. The system is too complex and too broad. It
                                                                on welfare to working. These people need more resources to   is clear that a large (and growing) percentage of new
                                                                get them moving. They are the minority but they consume      zealanders are now part of the welfare state, with benefits,
                                                                the political debate about welfare dependency.               entitlements tops up, special situations etc This not creating
                                                                                                                             economically independent people

For the disabled it is the understanding that their supports                                                                 for those with disabilities it would be useful to recognise the
are recognised as being long-term and not subject to                                                                         social disability that is Aspergers-currently there is no
constant review                                                                                                              assistance unless they have a mental or intellectual disability.
                                                                                                                             With the right support they can be employed successfully
WINZ liaison with other govt depts.                           Yes. I believe teenagers should have to work/learn for their No - as above
                                                              benefits. I believe parents should have to return to/work
                                                              when their youngest child reaches 8 years of age and prepare
                                                              to so when that child is 5 years of age, ie. education. I believe
                                                              there are far too many 'extra' benefits which people most in
                                                              need are often not made aware of whilst those most able to
                                                              advocate for their needs benefit from them eg.
                                                              accommodation allowance, disability allowance.

Requiring a person to be actively seeking work if not a      Training help is not adequate. The size of beneficiary          They are mostly good.
sickness beneficiary. Indefinite coverage to ensure people   payments for those on sickness benefits does not reflect the
aren't left high and dry due to work not coming soon enough. fact that family sizes have gotten smaller and medical care is
                                                             now available which unfortunately can be very expensive.
                                                             The size of this benefit is probably too small for many people.
None that I can think of.   As someone with a disability, I was in receipt of an Invalid's     Invalid's Beneficiaries should not be forced onto Sickness
                            Benefit a few years ago. So was my husband, who has                Benefits, we're not sick, we're disabled.
                            nothing physically wrong with him. He was, in fact, in receipt
                            of the other half of my benefit, something we were told was a
                            legal necessity. In order for him to refuse his half, he would
                            have to put the request in writing, and even if it was granted,
                            I would still only receive my half, the other half having to be
                            'paid into a black hole', as it were. This meant my husband
                            had to declare his weekly income to WINZ, and of course as
                            an able-bodied man in regular employment, this was always
                            well above the threshold for me to receive my full
                            entitlement, disadvantaging me personally. This experience
                            has led me to believe that benefits should be paid in full to
                            the beneficiary, thus avoiding the situation where a perfectly
                            able-bodied man has to comply with WINZ rules for Invalids
                            Beneficiaries, when he is in fact in full-time work and
                            perfectly healthy. Also, the name "Invalid's Benefit" has to
                            go, it's outdated, and, to some, offensive, as it sounds like "In-
                            VA-lid". And please, while we're on the subject, could we do
                            away with the annual/periodic medical checkups which
none                        all of it                                                          no
Only the financial assistance but even then it is like pulling a   Attitudes of the department and the employees towards          Yes.
tooth to access. It does not make people feel nice about           their 'clients' need to change and to recognise that at all
themselves. Working For Families - Family Tax Credit is            times they are dealing with people who are at risk and
great and needs to be kept and kept at current levels as a         vulnerable. Don't force unemployable people to try and
minimum. Perhaps the top thresholds could be lowered so            find jobs when:- 1. they are not going to EVER be employed
that 'richer' families take more responsibilty for paying for      no matter how menial the job; 2. they have no skills to use in
their children's out of school care.                               a job; 3. do not have the mental and/or physical capacity to
                                                                   hold down a job. Time, resources and money would be
                                                                   better spent on those who actually can and want to work.

Training incentive allowance should be retained and           Yes, income abatements, do not take into account, the effect Yes.
reinstated to previous levels, enabling people to             of secondary tax, travel costs, or childcare costs. Many are
train/upskill/gain qualifications in areas that will increase worse off working part time than relying solely on a benefit.
their chances of employment and earning potential in order
to support themselves and their families without reliance on

The job search and training available through the benefit          The entire system is outdated and needs to be replaced. A      See 7.
system although they do need to be updated to modern               minimum Universal Income would be much better.

Benefit amounts should be increased to provide a dignified         Same sex relationships need formal recognition. Additional  The scope should be expanded to formally recognise same-
existence to recipients.                                           assistance is required for disabled people from children to sex relationships.
                                                                   adulthood, and mental health support needs to be improved
                                                                   and taken into account by case managers.
Food vouchers. Medical/dental/rent/etc support in special         The amount received to look after children properly. Few        Yes
cases.                                                            child-targeted programs or support.

Well the fact that we have a welfare system at all after 20       Yes the low level of payments and the inflexible paperwork      A type of universal basic income should replace the benefit
years of neo liberal economics is still positive                                                                                  system, but with provision for extra care for elderly and ill.

All of it. The benefit system is a societal safety net. Single    The amount paid out to beneficiaries. It is incredibly difficult Yes
parents who are on the benefit are there so that they are         to make ends meet on a current benefit payout and this
able to support their children. Invalids who are on the benefit   should be increased to reflect the true costs of living. The
are there due to being deemed unable to work.                     amount paid out to families. The reason people live apart to
                                                                  get more money out of the benefit is that this is the only way
                                                                  they are able to make ends meet. The services available.
                                                                  Budgeting courses and healthy eating courses should be
                                                                  compulsory, along with information about how to grow
                                                                  vegetables and other ways of eating better for less.
As a dentist, it's brilliant to get $ 300 for examining a        Yes, how is it we have a "woman alone" benefit and not a    No, they should be expanded.
beneficiary, which would only pay $ 80 for anyone else. Also     "man alone" one? Why is there a stand down for self-
as an optometrist, I can charge $ 400 for a $ 100 pair of        employed people on sickness benefits, when clearly they are
glasses, if the person wanting them is a beneficiary and I get   not getting a "last pay" like an employee does?
paid through WINZ, not the person. Also, my investment
property gets paid off quite nicely, since I can charge way
more than its worth, after all my beneficiary tenant gets
accommodation supplement.

The TIA should have been retained - it was getting sole          1.The accomodation supplement does not reflect the cost of Yes
parents into long term good jobs. The categories of benefits     housing in cities. For example the average rent in Waitakere
are working well as they take into account the differing needs   city is $350 and it is difficult to find adequate housing below
of beneficiaries                                                 that price. Yet the accomodation supplement is capped at
                                                                 $160. This means a typical beneficiary in this area pays over
                                                                 half their benefit towards rent which is financially crippling
                                                                 and often means they are forced to borrow to meet essential
                                                                 expenses and bills or must cut down on their food budget
                                                                 meaning they do not have enough to feed themselves. The
                                                                 2010 NZ food cost survey recommended a family with one
                                                                 adult, a teenage boy and a 10 year old girl need to spend a
                                                                 minimum of 196 on food alone for adequate nutrition.
                                                                 However because of accomodation costs, sole parent families
                                                                 dependent on benefits are often left with $60 to $100 to
                                                                 spend on food as well as essential non food items such as
                                                                 toilet paper etc. 2.Childcare subsidies are inadequate so
                                                                 even though the vast majority of sole parents want to work
                                                                 the cost makes it very difficult for them to do so. 3. Jobs in
                                                                 recent decades require increasing levels of qualifications as a
                                                                 minimum requirement. Focus on and funding for training
                                                                 does not reflect this fact.
I think it's all working well and that cutting bit's will only    Dental care, it is sadly outdated and needs to be brought up Yes
make life harder for some. The money paid out in benefits         to a level that can help people have a better lift. The amount
just doesn't vanish, that money goes from the beneficiary         of assistance has not changed even though the costs of
straight back into the community, the money goes to local         dental treatment has sky-rocketed, making it impossible for
business, food, cloths, rent and power + phone. That money        people to get treatment with being serious crippled
isn't only helping those people and their families it's helping   financially.
the greater community as well.

All of them. We have to have a safety net. Even one of you        Yes. Benefit rates are so low. The cost of living has gone up   Absolutely. However there needs to be a more dignified
on the working group have access to help from the benefit if      and to survive on them creates crime and substance abuse        approach in the meeting process.
you happen to fall on hard times, you know, you don't have a      problems. The 3rd degree mentality of the social workers
blind trust and your inheritance does't materialise, your         could change also.
business goes down the gurgler, you have to declare
bankrupcy and you haven't stowed away your porche in your
wifes name, you have to live in your kids tauranga bach.
Hard times.
The basic premise - that this is a safety net and anyone could    Helping part time workers still get some benefit.               yes
need it.                                                          Accomodation supplement - seen as direct payment to

Pretty much all of them.                                          The level of benefits is WAY too low and contributes to crime Yes.
                                                                  and domestic violence in a MAJOR way.

Assistance to sole parents and parents being encourage to         Yes the system has not taken into account the lack of jobs.    Absolutely and expanded to incoporate above.
stay home and look after their children. Providing assistance     The greater automation of business. the need for greater
to invalids that allows them to take time to recover their        training to up skill workers. The need for parents to have
health. Training incentive allowance for training. Special        plenty of felixability at work that allows them to prioritise
need grants for beneficaries who are struggling.                  their children as opposed to paid employment.Benefits
                                                                  should be assesible for parents as soon as they are unwell
                                                                  and should support their quick return to health. Their should
                                                                  be longer maternity leave so mothers can stay home and be
                                                                  paid longer so they can establish breast feeding and bonding
                                                                  at least a years worth of maturnity leave paid.Sole parents
                                                                  would need longer and plenty of access to training so they
                                                                  can return to high paying jobs that will give greater security
                                                                  to their families.
Very few                  The abatement system                                      Too complex. The whole issue needs simplifying and
                                                                                    reductive in administrative work

Not that I'm aware off.   Clearly there are many - the whole "system" needs reviewing No comment.
                          and revising.
The medical alarm subsidy was working very well for the tax    all                                                           no
payer and the recipient but it has recently been effectively
killed off by making it impossible in practical terms to
introduce a person to this benifit if they need it or not

Smaller WINZ offices are better, as they always seem more      The TIA. What a mistake to cut.. Horrified. This could been   Not a issue from where I sit.
helpful, supportive, undiscrimitive and you don't have to wait only made for job skill shortage areas.
half and hour in a line. This is a major. I don't seem much
wrong with benefit payments, though it is real struggle to
survive on them. More subsidized childcare for under 3s and
after school care. Free training opportunities for people on
benefit for X amount of time. Work experience
opportunities. Letting each client know which they are
entitled to in regards to training and work.
Much of the system is working well. It speaks of caring, co- Tinkering with the system is outdated because attention is   See above.
operation and a commitment to ensure basic living standards focussed narrowly on money. It is time for a discussion on
are available to all citizens regardless of their situation. ethics. Most New Zealanders would welcome a clear-cut
                                                             official statement of confidence in their belief that our
                                                             commitment to care for the unfortunate does not extend to

Those who care for handicapped or disabled people. Invalids Most aspects A lot has changed over the years and has not No There should be a complete revamp of Unemployment,
but only those who are genuine Too many poeople out there kept pace and is outdated. But it needs to be toughened up. Independant Youth, Woman Alone and Sickness
with backs
Veterans benefits are deserved. No others.   Most of it.   No. Scope is a huge problem -- benefits need to be time-
                                                           limited. No one on DPB should receive any incentive to have
                                                           more children -- in amount or duration of benefits.
Most genuinely handicapped and those with again genuine       There are almost universal aspects of the current raft of         The underlying concept or original purpose of benefit support
sickness and who are supported by reputable medical           benefits that are not so much outdated but that have moved        should be revisited and then re-established as the concept
practitioners are fairly treated under the present system.    so far away from the original concept that they are now           was meant to be...a hand up...not a permanent hand out. In
Those receiving age benefits are also well served. However    considered "rights" instead of "privilege". Any system that       terms of scope, clearly there is a need to limit the extent of
there is a case for considering increasing the age of         engenders an attitude of lifestyle instead of transition is a     what is offered today not only from a fiscal standpoint but
entitlement for the pension and making compulsory savings a   failure and needs drastic and immediate change. Claiming          also from the standpoint of developing a more concentrated
universal requirement thus relieving the state from the       changing "Nature of work" and "Families" as an excuse for         placement of monies that can be better utilise to help those
onerous and increasing cost to its tax payers. Again a        benefit entitlement is excusing the inexcusable. In reality       who are really genuinely in need of support.
position not acceptable politically is the option of means    work is work and families are families in the broader sense
testing for beneficiaries, but would need to have some        that never changes and both come with a definite degree of
incentives for those who save for their own retirement.       personal responsibility. The premise of self reliance and
                                                              responsibility must be foremost in the requirements of any
                                                              taxpayer support and engendered in the minds of everyone
                                                              so that the public perception of what benefits are really all
                                                              about is very clear.

The disability and sickness benefit system. some aspects of   WINZ used to provide a good system of helping employers           Yes it is appropriate for the needs of society.
Domesic Purposes Benefit System. especially for those with    find employees but this seems to have fallen apart.
pre and early school age children.                            Prepareing benificiaries for a useful education or re education
                                                              programme. Many of the programmes people are sent on by
                                                              WINZ are a wast of time and money. People need to be
                                                              assessed as to where they have failed to prepare for the
                                                              working world and educated accordingly in UNITECS or
                                                              universities or be returned to school if that is the area that
                                                              has failed them.
Generally speaking the system does appear to be coping in     The widows benefit only applies to women! Having multiple         Shoudl only be one category and one formula (complex yes
terms of providing an acceptable standard of living. There    categories of benefit complicates things. There is insufficient   but still only one) for calculating the benefit someone will
will always be arguments about what is acceptable but this    (some would say none in many cases) concentration on              receive. Also I consider National Super to be a benefit and it
can easily be managed.                                        getting people off the system.                                    shoudl be included in the one system. After all it is just a
                                                                                                                                transfer payment based on age. What is the difference to a
                                                                                                                                transfer paymetn based on work status, illness etc.
While I think that it would be a disaster if there was no state GPs should not certify the sickness of sickness beneficiaries. A    Eliminate the DPB for a start. The mother is either
support for individuals who lose their income because their separate sickness-invalid assessment agency is needed.                  unemployed or on maternity leave. Tighter eligibility and a
job vanishes or they become disabled, the benefit system has                                                                        separate agency to evaluate those on the sickness or invalid
become so pervasive that it subsidises the entire economy.                                                                          benefit would put more on the unemployment benefit, and
                                                                                                                                    thereby back into work.

                                                                 Family Court system should, in the majority of cases, be           No. One benefit and no family receiving more than a 40 hour
                                                                 granting shared custody requiring both parents to continue         per week minimum wage job. Incentives for working (e.g.
                                                                 to share financial responsibility for their children which would   one off cash payment after 6 months employed and then
                                                                 not require any DPB payment. A time-limited benefit (e.g. 1        more after a year?).
                                                                 year) would allow for a period of adjustment.

Pensions/superann Disability - but with the proviso that it is   Yes - the idea that a state house is a home for life. Most         No - streamline to supperan & other. With levels of other
limited to real disabilities not alcoholism and drug addiction   renters and owner occupiers move from time to time for             dependant upon number in family, living situation etc,
which are inherently a choice at some stage and these should     work or for new opportunities, or to up/down size. State           providing a level of income that can house, clothe and feed
be treated with treatment not state funded.                      housing should be for those in most need and it should be          without undue hardship.
                                                                 means tested and income related with the top rent being
                                                                 above market rent so that there is an incentive to move out.
                                                                 However some people will not ever earn more
                                                                 (superannuants) and should be allowed to stay forever.
                                                                 Tenant contracts should provide for eviction if tenants do not
                                                                 care for the property or community in the way that private
                                                                 rentals do. Responsiblity for self/family is a must, it is not
Training incentive allowances are brilliant and an ideal way of Yes – the system of having benefits in a pseudo hierarchy that   Perhaps DPB, sickness and disability benefits should be well
encourages beneficiaries to up skill for work                   encourages people to work from the unemployment benefit          separated from the unemployment so that recipients don’t
                                                                towards the invalids is very concerning. Also the tendency       see other benefits as a way to escape the job hunting
                                                                to assume familial help can be very destructive. For example     obligations of the unemployment benefit
                                                                cutting a solo mother’s DPB when she begins a relationship is
                                                                unethical – more attention needs to be paid to the individual
                                                                family’s needs rather than looking for any excuse to reduce
                                                                benefit payments. Often other family members are a drain on
                                                                income not a boost...

at least there is one...                                                                                                         is this the tired old universal benefit argument again? If
                                                                                                                                 people need suport I want them to have it targeted for their
                                                                                                                                 needs, respectfully offerred and also alongside support and
                                                                                                                                 information about work / study/ health improvement
                                                                                                                                 opportunities etc.

Needs a total overhaul - some programmes have merrit but       There is more opportunities for part time work - the stand     There needs to be more variety for varying levels of
they don't go far enough.                                      down period for people who find themselves out of work can beneficiaries and their situation that provide different levels
                                                               prevent people from attempting to find work in fear that if it of support.
                                                               doesn't work out, they will be without an income for an
                                                               extended period of time.
•	ontinued financial childcare support for pre-schoolers         L
                                                               •	imit the number of children a benefit pays for to the            Y
                                                                                                                                 •	es as there are plenty of people who need assistance
/children at school especially for sole parents •	             number of children the clietn has at the time of going on to       N
                                                                                                                                 •	 eed more support for people who have lost their jobs
assistance for essential needs such as hearing aids, teeth                    R                                  R
                                                               the benefit •	 aise the eligibility age for DPB •	edirection of   through redundancy as this is still happening in our area
repair and glasses that will enable people to get into the                                                     J
                                                               benefit for the essentials – power and rent •	udges should         S
                                                                                                                                 •	ingle people are more disadvantaged when they lose jobs
workforce •	ontinue to address inconsistency between case      not be able to re-direct benefit for the payment of debt. This    as they have less support
managers and different W & I offices •	 ore robust checking                                               P
                                                               often results in less food for children •	rovide food vouchers
of circumstances to detect fraud matching IRD with W & I and                               M
                                                               so that children are fed •	 ore information about benefit
visiting client’s homes                                                                                   R
                                                               fraud to beneficiaries at W & I offices •	equirement for more
                                                               formalized working relationships and increased
                                                               communication between W & I Case Managers and budgeters
                                                               •	ase Managers at W & I utilising budgeting services
                                                               differently. Requiring the client to come to a series of
                                                               budgeting appointments which includes an analysis of bank
                                                               statements to indicate where money is actually going before
                                                               advancing hardship assistance •	rogrammes/counselling to
                                                               encourage families to work at staying together

                                                                                                                                 Yes all of it.

I've seen some positive marketing posters that share peoples Pretty much everything, the system is archaic. The                  Requesting submissions is not enough. With the availability of
success stories and focus on peoples strengths and potential, government needs to cut the bureaucracy. They need to              free online tools you should be able to survey thousands of
portraying people as assets to their community.               enable private companies to intervene and introduce                people to offer insight here.
Training aspects and work for the dole. If job vacancies are       The whole concept of a benefit has changed radically since its No. see above.
not available in a given area, then local Councils should be       inception. The initial raison d'tre was a benefit for those who
subsidised to create work opportunities to reduce contract         were destitute. Less than 2% of todays beneficiaries would
engagements and higher rates as a result for the working           qualify under the original designation.
The Disabilty Allowance is great but it should be able to be       Yes . The Sickness Benefit is an awful benefit. Very few people   No . I have thought about getting rid of the Sickness Benefit
directed to the organisation delivering the service - that being   are so sick they cannot work and those that are ,are easily       completely. Have one unemployment benefit and the Invalids
the Pharmacy , GP , Other Health Professional , Gardens            recognised and acknowledged as being unfit. There are alot        benefit. If you are sick and cannot meet your obligations on
person etc. It is fair but often not spent of what it was          of people with medical issues and most of these people work       the UB then you get a regular medical cert from your doctor
intended for.                                                      productive lives some well past retirement age. The SB            like you would if you had a job. Few GPs give work med certs
                                                                   legitimises not working because of a medical issue that does      for longer than a few weeks - most are for a day or so. When
                                                                   not preclude one from working. It creates a dichotomy -           you go on the UB , you sign a contract like you do when you
                                                                   totally healthy = can work ,and ,have a medical problem =         start a job . This sets out obligations you need to fulfil - like
                                                                   cannot work. Even people with quite serious medical issues        an employment contract. I would like to see a work suitability
                                                                   still work. My ultimate system would have more emphasis on        programme so that unemployed people are directed into job
                                                                   " what work can you do " rather than being unfit for all work.    options appropriate to their skills , experience and health.
                                                                   There are some people who cannot work and they should be          Upskilling should always be an option. Under your contract
                                                                   on Invalids. Get rid of the Sickness Benefit.                     with WINZ you might be asked to get some vocational
                                                                                                                                     experience - attend a work place for a day or similar
                                                                                                                                     experience . Being uneployed has to become more " work
                                                                                                                                     like" rather than current situation. Getting people out to see
                                                                                                                                     different jobs may stmulate interest.

Flexibility in terms of personal circumstances. Emphasis on        Basing benefits on circumstances rather than deservedness.        There should be three catagories. Unemployment (1 year
active seeking of rather than actually having work.                Classing self induced conditions like alcoholism and drug         maximum) Unsupported Parent ( varying depending on
                                                                   abuse as sickness, and subsidising these people's habits          circumstances but eligibility to cease if "unsupported"parent
                                                                   through the benefit system instead of managing them into          has another child while in receipt of benefit and strong focus
                                                                   treatment and counselling. Accepting the pc arguement that        on assisting into paid work either part or full time) Sickness
                                                                   sitting around at home rather than working and engaging in        (varying depending upon duration of condition with WINZ
                                                                   the community is the best treatment for lesser forms of           appointed doctor to have final say) This would roll sickness
                                                                   mental illness. The PC way of dealing with benefit fraud i.e.     and invalid benefits into one, and the eligibility tightened
                                                                   repayments set far too low, fraudsters allowed back on or to      considerably to exclude those who have contributed to their
                                                                   stay on benefit, fraudsters' partners not charged as              own conditions, and who despite various 'syndromes' and
                                                                   accessories, no use of IRD in fraud cases.                        dubious mental illnesses can still lead a fully functioning
                                                                                                                                     social life and interact sufficiently with people to aggressively
                                                                                                                                     agitate at WINZ for example for more money and sometimes
                                                                                                                                     in the public arena. It is ludicruous for example for an able
                                                                                                                                     bodied young woman like Natasha Fuller to recieve a
                                                                                                                                     disability allowance for a dubious "syndrome" when she is
                                                                                                                                     clearly articulate and able to fully engage in society.
1. Working for Families. 2. Disability payments (although         1. Accommodation Supplement: it should be standardized               Yes, but really tackling unemployment would mean actually
they need to be increased) 3. Invalids Benefit-it has             nationwide ( there is very little difference in the cost of things   taking a look at why people don't remain in work, feel good
incredibly strict standards to even get on the thing 4.           across the country, so why should someone in Auckland                about themselves, earn a decent wage etc etc, leave the sick
Accommodation Supplement-see point 7 for changes. 5.              Central who's power, internet, phone and groceries are               and injured alone. After all, I would estimate ACC is
Emergency Payments                                                cheaper get a max of $225 per week, when someone in Rural            responsible for more people ending up on sickness/invalids
                                                                  Whangarei be only entitled to $70 max when they have                 benefit for not paying out even though a person is genuinely
                                                                  higher costing utilities, and have to travel to get food, plus       injured, than natural progression of illness.
                                                                  the rents are the same. 2. There is no career
                                                                  planning/management of individuals to ensure all round
                                                                  happiness: i.e How would someone benefit and achieve if
                                                                  they were actually doing something they wanted? 3. Child
                                                                  Care- If you have kids there is no point with a second partner
                                                                  working as all costs are taken up in child care, and its no good
                                                                  for kids or families. 4.

The aspects where people can live in nhouses and eat food-        The idea of married benefits- rather than individual benefits- Yes
even if they don't have a job. The good safety net. The ability   the idea that a married couple can survive on less than two
for parents to be at home with their children when they are       individuals. The idea that a sole parent can not have a
small.                                                            boyfriend without that boyfriend being expected to
                                                                  financially provide for her and her children.
It is largely caring. We do not have beggars on our streets and Agree with the analysis inthe report   No see above. Medical information is needed to assess what
in my experience those in financial distress are responded to                                          the health barriers to work might be but they should not be a
sympathetically.                                                                                       determining feature of benefit receipt. Unsure of
                                                                                                       nomenclature but at one extreme would be people with
                                                                                                       "Insurmountable barriers to work" through a continuum to
                                                                                                       "Minor and ammendable barriers to work" There needs to
                                                                                                       be a greater linkage between Welfare and Health. If someone
                                                                                                       is on a benefit because of an easily treatable health condition
                                                                                                       then this should be able to be acted on promptly outside of
                                                                                                       the hospital waiting list system.

Don't know.                                                    Don't know.                             Don't know.
Refer my answer to Q2 above.   Refer my answer to Q4 above.   Yes
I don't know to be honest.                                Maybe you need to have processes that are timely and           Where there is inequity between scopes that should be
                                                          responsive, so that if a longterm beneficiary loses their      stopped e.g business start up should be aimed not just at the
                                                          job/becomes unable to work as much/at all it is not too        unempolyed, but sickness/invalids too.
                                                          nightmarish to get support.There should be more emphasis
                                                          on job sharing, flexi time, work from home. And things should
                                                          be equitable. Maybe the government needs to look at
                                                          training people for jobs it needs doing. Childcare, geography,
                                                          Generation Y attitudes..... If there is high youth
                                                          unemployment they should be "conscripted" into
                                                          programmes to better the communities they live in, it is a
                                                          tragedy that so many youngsters think it is better to live on
                                                          the dole-make them do something constructive for their

Short term assistance for people between jobs and short   Don't know                                                    Yes - but with changes
term sickness beneficiaries
Does the complexity and structure of supplementary         Should there be more of a focus on paid work for sole            Should there be more of a focus on paid work for people
payments create disincentives to work?                     parents?                                                         managing with a sickness or disability?

Open-Ended Response                                        Open-Ended Response                                              Open-Ended Response
Probably for some. But on the other hand, with the right   I understand that some of the excellent provisions for sole      As above.
attitudes from the Govenrment agencies and beneficiaries   parents to return to study have been lost and if so this a great
and a culture of working together, it is excellent.        pity. Offering this sort of hand up is crucial for many. Many
                                                           single parents will have lost confidence in themselves and
                                                           their abilities and need encouragement, not denigration, if
                                                           they are to successfully re-enter the workforce (or enter it for
                                                           the first time)

No.                                                        No.                                                              I don't understand?

                                                           Most definitely not necessarily; parenting is a socially         Not unless there really are jobs out there. we also have to
                                                           essential productive occupation. It should be acknowledged,      accept that many people cannot find a place in the paid
                                                           and parents supported to do the best job they possibly can,      workforce even at the best of times, but can have personally
                                                           which is not compatible with the main caregiver being in full-   and socially meaningful 'occupations' through facilities like
                                                           time employment, unless that caregiver is very well              day centres, art workshops, volunteering and timebanks.
                                                           supported eg by other family members who are also going to
                                                           be involved with the child/ren long term.
It's more the lack of enough jibs that provide a reasonable    No.                                                              No. Tthe focus should be more on helping people to become
income for living on.                                                                                                           more able to contribute to society int he future.

Yes - it does particularly for immigrants who come to NZ and   Yes - and professional development and focus on sole parents     Yes - we have too many people on sickness and disability
even the amount received on the benefit is deemed 'alot of     creating a healthy environment to raise their children. Sole     benefits. There should be a 'well-being' benefit - where the
money for them compared to what they received in their         parents should be further educated that it's not the best        mindset of people should be to get better and be paid for it!
homeland'. Also with this they can also apply for housing      option for their children to end up on the benefit - BREAK       There should be very serious monitoring too to ensure people
benefit etc.....the Govt is slowly creating a 'dependent       THE CYCLE! Before focusing on paid work for sole parents,        are not 'ripping the system off'.
community' in key areas in NZ eg., South Auckland where it     the govenment should concentrate on encouraging potential
becomes too easier for famlies to seek 'housing nz'            sole parents to become co-parents/married. For many young
accommodation and therefore leading to unhealthy living        people it's the 'economics' of being a sole parent that is an
arrangements with overhousing with the majority of tenants     incentive for receiving the benefit as opposed to an incentive
being beneficiaries.                                           to marry and raise your child in a happy home environment.
                                                               Government should support goal.
No and yes. I worked in a job (over 22 plus hours) declaring           I never knew there wasn't a paid work focus while I have         Fair enough If the clearance is given by an appriopriate
my income and half of it was subtracted from my benefit and            been on dpb in the last eight years as I have always done        medical professional - depending on what vetting needs to be
this didn't bother me as I felt I should meet midway.                  something. But sadly work that I have managed to acquire         done for what sickness of disability?
However sadly for me my job is low skill minimum wage and              has never had enough job security for me to leave the dpb
not very secure (rostered monthly that can be changed at any           even when I was working 3/4 days go onto working for
notice) so I felt I couldn't go onto 'working for families' as one     families. Although I couldn't get reasonable work with
week I may work only two days and the next five days so I              some prospect or security I thought well fair enough to work
never left the dpb. It really depends on the individual's              half and half - midway view (20hours less or more give or
conditions, quality of employment plus the family support              take) at a not ideal job but a job that I would be ok with to do
and dynamics. For example my difficult daughter - (whom                part time. It was my way of saying that I did care enough
from the beginning I had very little support from family and a         about the 'tax payer' and to show my act of personal
father who would simply say if you don't behave I take you             reasonability and contribution however at the same time not
back to your mother's) - has been in trouble with law, justice         been completely shackled to a minimum wage been not
depart, school truancy and yes cyfs know about the day to              exploit by an employer who had very little care about my
day difficulties and hostilities I experience so it is too difficult   longterm prospects as an employee.
and risky to work full time but o.k. to do part time. Sadly for
me I have no work today as from weekend of my 43rd
birthday my employer has decided not to operate his
business in the weekends which I'm still regularly rostered so
I neither sacked, redundant or have resigned. I should have
been given two weeks notice about the lockout and paid,
Yes, but only because benefits are not linked to a work                Absolutely! Life on a benefit is a disaster for sole parents and   Absolutely! People should be assessed for their capacity to
requirement, and because an entitlement dynamic has been               children alike. The sooner the system is changed so it             work and a system devised that encourages them to
allowed to develop.                                                    provides temporary support while the sole parent gets back         contribute to the best of their ability. I understand such
                                                                       on their feet and gets a job, the better.                          systems are proving to be successful in the US. The over-
                                                                                                                                          riding concept should be that of helping those who are
                                                                                                                                          temporarily incapacitated to get back on their feet so they
                                                                                                                                          can become independent, with those who are permanently
                                                                                                                                          impaired encouraged contribute and participate as best they
Complexity is definitely an issue, as it makes it more difficult   Discussion regarding the appropriate obligations sole parents     Firstly, as Economics Professor Paul Dalziel explains in his
for benefit recipients to easily see the incentives to work.       receiving the benefit should have is a normative question,        paper, “Welfare Reform in New Zealand: The Issues,” the
Abatement threshold levels and rates across all benefit types      which requires citizen’s discussing the role of parenting in      assertion made in the WWG Report that the increase in the
need to be analysed to determine their impact on work              today’s society. However, several points can be raised:           number of people receiving the sickness benefit is not caused
incentives The threshold and abatement rates for the                 F
                                                                   •	irst, we should acknowledge that parenting is challenging at    by an increase in sickness in the general population is based
Minimum Family Tax Credit create disincentives to work over        the best of times: for many parents, raising children is one of   on average trends that mask the experience of the segment
20 hours for sole parents receiving the DPB                        the most difficult and trying jobs they have to face in their     of the population for whom medical health limits their
                                                                   ‘working’ life; even more so, as a sole parent when you do        capacity to work (see Dalziel, p.15- ) An informed and well-
                                                                   not have a partner to share the responsibilities ordinarily       balanced reading of research analysing unemployment, socio-
                                                                   shared among a couple (e.g., childcare and paid employment)       economic and health statistics over the last 30 years would
                                                                   •	econd, we should recognise the social and economic value        conclude that extended periods of low income (as
                                                                   to society of good parenting. As such, full-time childcare of     experienced by those unemployed and receiving a benefit) is
                                                                   one’s children, although unpaid by the market, has a              a major contributing factor in the increased take up of
                                                                   legitimate claim to be seen as work and should be recognised      sickness benefits. If you look at income inequality and
                                                                   as meeting any work-test obligations •	hird, once children        poverty levels, and the trend in real incomes of those in the
                                                                   are at school, child-care responsibilities would no longer be a   lowest two income quintiles, and then disaggregate health
                                                                   full-time job, but the importance of parental supervision after   data that investigates the link between income and good
                                                                   school should be acknowledge as important not only for            health outcomes, then it becomes no surprise that sickness
                                                                   young children (<14), but also for older teenagers, to help       benefits have increased. By definition, if a person is on a
                                                                   supervise homework, reduce delinquent behaviour, etc. For         sickness or disability benefit, then any work-testing needs to
                                                                   older children and teenagers, back-to work policies have          be carefully managed. If they are in a position to work and,
I am convinced the supplementary payments are assisting in         There should be no doubt about this. No sole parent needs to      I am not as familiar with this area of the benefit system but
creating massive disincentive to find employment. If they          be at home once the child/children go to school. A limit of       do consider there are those with disabilites already in the
were not available so freely it may make some beneficiaries        one year on the Domestic Purpose Benefit is ample to sort         work force and anyone who is on a sickness benefit should
consider finding employment so they can afford the things          through the practicalities of being the sole parent and make      work if at all possible. Obviously there are some on a sickness
they consider they should have.                                    the appropriate adjustments in your life. If employment is not    benefit where employment is clearly impossible but in all
                                                                   available in the public sector then perhaps they could be paid    other cases assessment should be made to ensure if the
                                                                   for community based work where often there is a shortage.         person is able to complete some form of work then they have
                                                                   Overall they would set a better example for their children and    to work.
                                                                   develop self pride.
                                                              Not if this means copying failed overseas systems. Again it is   It would be fantastic if those who are sick or have a disability
                                                              about having appropriate work. I was a solo mother who           have as much opportunity as others to contribute their skills
                                                              worked 90% of my son's childhood and regret the very             and knowledge WITHIN what they are capable of. To make a
                                                              limited time I had to care for him. But I found the benefit so   sick person work if they need to rest is plain stupid.
                                                              degrading and limited I was not prepared to stay on it. Any
                                                              work for solo parents needs to have the flexibility to be able
                                                              to put the children's needs first. Without this we are just
                                                              creating even bigger disasters than we have already -
                                                              disasters that stem from inadequate care for children caused
                                                              by parents being too busy. Neglect is one of the biggest
                                                              problems noticed by child care agencies now and research
                                                              suggests it has one of childhood experiences, along with
                                                              sexual abuse, which people are least likely to recover from.
                                                              Waht this means is that looking at the benefit system by
                                                              simply trying to reduce the numbers on benefits is extremely
                                                              dangerous for the future of our society. Instead we need to
                                                              look at the wider picture and make changes that will work for
                                                              people now and will produce better citizens in the future as

Yes. There is a need to create a simple system that rewards   Not specifically. All beneficiaries should be expected to        ] I am concerned that sickness and disability benefits are
those who get back into employment.                           contribute some work in order to minimise the burden on the      being misused with the tacit acceptance of governments. I
                                                              taxpayers and to maintain working habits and contacts. In        should like to see accurate assessments of medical
                                                              many ways the greatest work expectations should be placed        disabilities, so that those with genuine disabilities can be
                                                              on those beneficiaries with no dependants, or with a partner     properly assisted, and those without significant disability be
                                                              who can look after their children. It is clear that Sole         managed as such. I should like to express my thanks to
                                                              parents have changed from a minority who did not choose          those members of our society who have genuine medical
                                                              that status (eg widows), to 25% of families in which the         disabilities and who still hold down part or full time jobs.
                                                              majority (of adults) have either chosen that lifestyle or have   These people are an inspiration to me in the way that they
                                                              contributed to it by choosing a partner who only stays for a     make their contributions to our society in spite of their
                                                              short time . As such, Solo parents are no longer a minority,     individual difficulties.
                                                              but part of the normal make-up of society. The normalisation
                                                              and self determination of this group means that they may no
                                                              longer claim any special status.
One disincentive that needs to be considered is the relatively We have major concerns with the approach and requirement        The number of beneficiates on the sickness benefits and
high effective marginal tax rates (EMTRs) that create          of work testing for solo parents following the youngest child   invalids benefits has steadily grown over recent years though
disincentives for beneficiaries to get back into work.         of a solo parent reaching six years old. The myth that solo     this trend is evident in other developed countries too. The
                                                               parents do not want to work must be challenged. The             issues paper recognises that New Zealand’s rate of
                                                               number of single parents who went back into the workforce       employment for disabled people is one of the highest in the
                                                               during the labour market shortages of 2004-2007 invalidates     OECD with approximately two in three disabled people, with
                                                               the myth. In 2008, as unemployment rose, so too did the         low or medium levels of support needs, in employment.
                                                               number of single parents moving from paid work back onto a      Though there is probably room for improvements we are
                                                               benefit. The clear lesson from this is that the prevailing      doing reasonably well in this area. The changing nature of
                                                               labour market has a greater impact on sole parent’s             work, increased work pressure and work intensification has
                                                               employment than financial incentives. The employment rate       also had a role in the growing numbers of people on sickness
                                                               of sole parents is closely linked to unemployment rates. An     and invalids’ benefits.
                                                               approach to effectively force single parents to work is a
                                                               pathway that constitutes a major social risk. Forcing people
                                                               and women and women in particular into low paid casual
                                                               precarious work will not improve work outcomes. Poor
                                                               quality work is not a solution to the complex issues faced by
                                                               solo parents as they struggle to meet the multiple demands
                                                               of providing care for their children, finding and keeping
                                                               employment and maintaining security of income.
Probably, yes.   Only when their children are at school and providing       Yes. But it depends on suitable flexible employment being
                 adequate high-quality child care is available as needed.   available.
Disincentives to paid work are lack of money (1)to eat       Absolutely not. (1)Sole parents are often having to deal          This depends on the person’s circumstances. All people with
properly, (2)to attend tertiary training, (3)to dress of a   with a violent partner or difficult separation matters, family    sicknesses and disability are not the same. (1)Some people
standard for work interviews and (4)to provide transport     court matters, manage child difficulties and address their        with disabilities will require greater assistance and support in
to attend work interviews (5)	o care adequately for one’s    own health problems without having to be forced into work         order to make the transition to work. This is particularly so of
children and (6)to sustain a sense of self worth.            when they can barely cope with everything else they have to       those with mental health problems and is also likely to be so
(7)Supplementary payments or third tier means-tested or      deal with on insufficient money. (2)Sole parents are              for those with recent physical disabilities. (2)Those who are
repayable grants may be a strong disincentive to work.       usually not on the benefit for unreasonable lengths of time       sick should not be expected to work. They should be
(8)Another big disincentive arises from high Effective       given their circumstances. (3)There should be more focus          supported to recover.
Marginal Tax Rates and the complex interface between         on assisting the sole parent with achieving her educational
welfare and tax.                                             goals in order that she can go into paid work when she is able
                                                             and ready. This will help to build her self-confidence and get
                                                             her out and about with others thus avoiding depression and
                                                             anxiety which are not uncommon in those who want to work
                                                             to improve themselves but are not able to due to funding

The complexity of the systems leads mainly to headaches,     Sole parents are working. They are on a benefit because they      As above- and only if that work is meaningful and can
misunderstandings and to people not receiving appropriate    have children. I do not know at which time in NZ's history we     enhance the lives of people who already have plenty to deal
levels of benefit.                                           started to treat the most important job in the world as so        with. The assumption, as above, is that only work is
                                                             unworthy. As well as raising their children soleparents are       worthwhile. People who are sick and disabled deserve our
                                                             often filling the voluntary jobs which our society depend         care and compassion. They remind us that we are all
                                                             upon. this "work" must be recognised as valid experience          vulnerable and that life does not provide an equal "playing
                                                             which can contribute to any future employment undertaken.         field". My personal experience of a family member being
                                                             The needs of children must be at the centre of any policy         "work tested" when they were clearly unwell-is that the
                                                             around sole parents and work. "Work"-outside the home has         stress and anxiety of the process caused more distress and ill-
                                                             been sanctified and the needs of children subjugated to the       health. This only resulted in more cost for the system and
                                                             needs of the market place.       To quote Ulrich Beck in "Brave   unnecessary distress for the person already feeling so
                                                             New World of Work" "...the biblical curse-that only those         compromised by ill health.
                                                             who work shall eat-has become the work morality grounding
                                                             human existence; only those who work are truly human."
- Not if my respnses in box 4 are taken into account and   - It would benefit their self-esteem, sense of contribution to   - Would have to depend on individual 'cases' and require
actioned at the very commencement of a person's            society, need for social interaction IFrewarding and creative    dedicated supportive staff to ensure that all the job seeker's
relationship with DSW.                                     part-time work it were more available.                           particular needs had been negotiated in advance. Again my
                                                                                                                            comments in box - readiness for and level of ability for work
                                                                                                                            needs to be assessed and negotiated right at the beginning of
                                                                                                                            the person's relationship with DSW. Note again the needs for
                                                                                                                            skilled adequately trained assessors with links to back up
                                                                                                                            medical support.

I don't believe so, but I lack personal experience.        Not if children and teenagers are left home alone after school Yes but one size does not fit all and great efforts must be
                                                           and during the school holidays. Teenagers ( up to age 17       made to ensure the work is enjoyable for individuals
                                                           then not so bad, usually) frequently get into trouble - when
                                                           they do our police say "Why weren't they being supervised by
                                                           a parent"!
No, although I think there could be stronger incentives built    No Sole parents are in my experience motivated to work, but        No People with an illness or disability should be able to
in to support people in work. For example the system of          face barriers such as access to childcare and employer             decide in conjunction with their treatment providers and
abatements could be replaced with a tax credit style "top up"    prejudice, and mitigating these barriers is the help that sole     support networks what focus to put on paid work. The focus
to incentivise work and assist exit from benefit, so that when   parents need to get to work. Also many sole parents see the        which is being implemented through the 27 September
people are working say 15 hours per week they are no longer      time when their children are dependent as an excellent time        changes will cause stress and increase health problems for
on benefit but are in subsidised work with the subsidy being     to upskill and prepare for their return to the workforce, and      this group. Also the intervention of the regional health and
calculated in a way that incentivises hours building to full     real practical assistance to access quality training such as the   disability advisors has added to the gatekeeping and stress
time and people thus feel both proud as they are in work and     TIA offered before it was limited is an important ingredient in    experienced by people managing sickness and disability.
incentivised to increase their hours. I think it is also         assisting sole parents back to work. Further I believe that the
important that W&I ensure that when people exit benefit but      circumstances for each sole parent are different and that
remain entitled to assistance such as Accommodation              each should be able to make their own choices about the
Supplement or Disability Allowance, that this assistance is      best balance between caring for their children and paid work.
provided wherever sufficient information is available to make    The primary consideration in this decision should be the
an assessment, and that in all cases people are advised that     welfare and best interests of the children involved, I'm sure
assistance may still be available and how to apply for this. I   no one wants teenagers wandering the malls and streets
also believe it would be useful to extend the debt suspension    while their parents prioritise paid work over their supervision
programme and ensure that this is offered to all clients         and welfare.
exiting benefit. It is also important that exiting clients are
made aware that they can still receive assistance under the
Special Needs Grant programme depending on their income.
No; indeed, I think we need a wider range of supplementary      Only for those who choose paid work over full-time parenting       Only for those who choose to move into paid work OR only if
payments (and for a longer period of time) to ensure that the   OR only if sufficient effort is first put into ensuring quality,   the attitudes and work practices of employers are first
transition from a benefit to work is sustained and that any     affordable childcare and suitable work with flexible hours are     addressed to ensure that suitable work with flexible
insecurity in the labour market is flattened out.               available to sole parents moving into paid work.                   hours/environments are available for those living with a
                                                                                                                                   sickness or disability.

Not in itself but the way it is presented . No information is  There should be a stabilising time and then a consultation          The needs of the sickness or disabilty must come first just
given to beneficiaries concerning how the benefit might work with the beneficiary to determine his/her needs which may             like a broken leg which if the cast comes off too quickly will
for them. The formulas that determine the structure of         be paid work.                                                       take longer to heal. Paid work may come later.
supplementary payments do not allow people to make
decisions about their living circumstances which in turn
creates a feeling of inadequacy and hopelessness. How to
improve ones situation becomes a self defeating exercise
because one does not know the impact financially until one
makes the changes. To make a blind leap is folly when
beneficiaries like others have financial responsibities. To be
vulnerable and take blind leaps further compounds the
Yes( see question 7)                                           No, not in the current envirionment of inadequate job             NO, but people in this situation who wish to and have the
                                                               creation on the part of business, the inadequate provision of     support to do so should be given apropriate encouragement,
                                                               childcare services, educational and vocational training,          and both employer and employees should be able to access
                                                               transport systems, and acessible health care, flexible work       services to enable their situations.
                                                               environments. Even most advanced individuals cannot be
                                                               physically in 2 places at once which is what the employers
                                                               lobby is trying to have working families achieve for them at
                                                               their own (workers) expense. ( see answer to question 2) Eg;
                                                               Both Governments have failed to even produce "bare bones"
                                                               early child care and education services. For the "goal" of
                                                               parental involvent in the workforce, we absolutely need to
                                                               cater for families with children in a fundamentally different
                                                               way. Benefit regulation needs to change universally to reflect
                                                               the new "necessity" expectation of individual economic
                                                               personal responsibility within family relations, and the rights
                                                               of children to be cared for, and given a meaningful pathway
                                                               to productive and sucessful adulthood. A grandmother who
                                                               was supporting her daughter through a pregnancy and
                                                               partnership breakdown, told me that when DPB was initiated,
                                                               the corresponding law around the obligation for financial
                                                               support of a caregiving parent was removed. The words used
Secondary tax begins at too low a level. I hear comments       I feel that progress is being made here.                          No. These people generally WANT to work, the opportunties
that "by the time we try to buy a Work Wardrobe, get                                                                             are not there.
transport, etc as associated with being in the public eye in
comparison to staying at home making ends meet, we are
worse off financially than without the work.
                                                                                                   For those for whom employment is an option.

Am not equipped to comment on this   I would have thought that sole parents are the ones who       If this is something that can help them feel better about
                                     need to be most supported and encouraged to stay home         themselves, but it should not be made compulsory thus
                                     with their children if that is what they chose to do. The     causing more anxiety and distress.
                                     importance of parents being available and unstressed on the
                                     development of children is a very clear connection, so trying
                                     to make sole parents who do not have another parent to
                                     support them to go out to work seems to go against other
                                     policies which argue the importance of good parenting.
While the present level of benefits exists there is no other     I see only benefits arising from paid work in terms of self      As above only more so.
choice if some beneficiaries are to survive in unexpected        esteem, health etc. However there is no point in forcing sole
situations. There is no fat in the present system of benefits.   parents to try to find work if there is none available to suit
                                                                 their qualifications and if the wage they would earn puts
                                                                 them below the income provided by the benefit. Training,
                                                                 child care, travel costs and the cost of clothing etc need to be
                                                                 considered. It is already known that when work is available
                                                                 the number of sole parent beneficiaries decreases with no
                                                                 more focus than there is now. Also, given that they have
                                                                 children to look after on their own the number on a benefit is
                                                                 not particularly large.

No, I believe the low minimum wage and high cost of food         I think we should respect the work of parents and I don't      It should be a decision of the individual to get into paid work
that create disincentives to work. You get a low paying job      think they should have to get into paid work. Its hard work    that is meaningful to them. I think it should be allowed for a
and you lose your housing benefit.                               raising children.                                              person to do volunteer work or paid work(particularly where
                                                                                                                                paid work is not a living wage) Some people can only work
                                                                                                                                for employees who can accept they may go weeks without
                                                                                                                                being able to work, then return to work for months for
A disincentive to be considered is that of high Effective        Solo parents should have the choice to care for their children Not at the expense of their health and wellbeing!
Marginal Tax rates                                               full-time - as they are doing the most important job in the
                                                                 community - raising the next generation.

It creates a lot of employment for bureaucrats and lawyers!      If adequate subsidized child care is made available, sole          For many such people, work for a non-trivial wage is a
                                                                 parents should have the right to supplement a benefit by           chimera. For example, people with conditions like spina bifida
                                                                 taking paid employment. But at the same time there should          are put through annual work-testing even though there are
                                                                 be explicit recognition that they are already working, albeit      no medical grounds for assuming there will ever be an
                                                                 for a very low wage.                                               improvement to their health.

Working for families and accomodation suppliment all distort NO Creating jobs is more expensive than paying benefits             No There are few enough jobs already why not give them to
the wage system and should be removed.                       especially if childcare is an issue. It is better for parents to be healthy unemployed first.
                                                             at home with children especially teenagers. And we must
                                                             remember legally it is an offence to leave children home

Yes - I believe these things are too complex. I have worked      No. There should be less of a focus on this. Parenting is a full   No - this just contributes to additional stress which is likely to
with parents who have got jobs & there has been an               time job in itself & we do not value it sufficiently in our        make the illness or disability worse. people who are ill need
unacceptable time lag between transferring their                 society. As a society I have noticed that we tend to pick on       time & money to attend doctors appoitments & support to
supplementary payments from WINZ to IRD which has                solo parents - we complain that they don't go to work & then       get themselves well not harrassment.
resulted in their kids going hungry. I believe their shoudl be   when their kids get into trouble we ask where the parent
a seamless system where payments stop at WINZ one week &         was. When you are a solo parent there is no one to pick up
start from IRD the next - the two departments need to            the slack - no one to take turns at taking time off work with
communicate better.                                              when the kids are sick. It is better to have parents caring for
                                                                 their kids than paying other people to take care of them.
Yes, it appears that people can get whatever they want and    Yes. There is no evidence that children are harmed by child    The SB has become an open ended benefit. It was designed
the public perception is that such money is seldom if ever,   care and there should be an expectation that the parent        for a "short term incapacity". The reason so many people
paid back.                                                    seeks paid employment.                                         remain on it for some many years is because it is easy to
                                                                                                                             obtain a GP's signature. These people do not qualify for an
                                                                                                                             Invalids Benefit (IB) so the SB becomes a defacto IB. The
                                                                                                                             initial SB should be accepted for 6 weeks and thereafter
                                                                                                                             renewals should be through a panel system. The panel could
                                                                                                                             consist of case manager, Occupationally trained doctor,
                                                                                                                             Nurse or mental health worker. Some abuses I am aware of:
                                                                                                                             a GP colleague came under pressure from the Pacific Island
                                                                                                                             community to sign SB Certificates for Pacific Islanders who
                                                                                                                             could not find a job because they spoke no English.
                                                                                                                             University Students were able to get a SB citing "stress" so
                                                                                                                             that they did not need to find paid work during their

Yes!                                                          This is a difficult one, as there is not necessarily the work Again a tricky one, finding suitable work for those in this
                                                              available, and even though mothers may be avle to work        category
                                                              when children commence school, finding work within suitable
                                                              hours could be tricky. ( I am assuming here that you are
                                                              referring to "solo"

not sure but the complexity of the whole system is currently not sure                                               not sure but probably yes
not helping my family. My husband decided to set up his own
business so that he could be more at home to help with our
son's needs as his job meant weekly trips away from home
and I was not coping. We are receiving no help from WINZ...

                                                                                                                    I have cerebral palsy. I remember my first appointment at an
                                                                                                                    employment agency that was supposed to cater for people
                                                                                                                    with disabilities. I had just graduated with a Diploma in
                                                                                                                    Library and Information Studies from Victoria University.
                                                                                                                    When I told him that I wanted to work in the library field, he
                                                                                                                    commented "you need training for that" The employment
                                                                                                                    consultant could not understand that I was intelligent and
                                                                                                                    had studied for a career in library work, and could not believe
                                                                                                                    that I had just done the Diploma. This is the first example
                                                                                                                    of many that highlights the complexity and frustration of
                                                                                                                    having a physical disability that makes me look very different
                                                                                                                    to the so called normal ideals, and having a very sharp mind.
                                                                                                                    More intelligent than the job seeking professionals.

yes                                                         yes, remember many single parents actually work. What   Yes, (refer my attached document). Disability is a distracting
                                                            makes them different to the people who don't?           term and should be replaced as it is political not rational.
                                                                                                                    Again there are people who have a "disability" who are
                                                                                                                    working who have the same "disability" as people who are
                                                                                                                    not working. What is different for them? The Labour market
                                                                                                                    and the incentives that support it defines the ability a person
                                                                                                                    to work.

                                                                                                                    Obviously paid work is a goal but where this isn't possible
                                                                                                                    some recognition that social participation in the community
                                                                                                                    is vital to ensure mental health and a meaningful life It may
                                                                                                                    be that unpaid work such as volunteer work or work
                                                                                                                    experience will fulfill a similar purpose to paid work in terms
                                                                                                                    of inclusion and relationships
Yes - too much reliance on them by too few.   Yes - as above.                                                     Yes - independent work plus doctors' assessments.

                                              Only if this is similarly buffered with large subsidies for child   No the effect is too demoralizing. While it is better for them
                                              care and does not target parents who having children less           to be in work the fact is most people with a disability which is
                                              than school age. Free childcare from 3-6 on school days             obvious will be turned away from hundreds of jobs despite
                                              would allow a lot more mothers to work full time and could          the laws against it. Unless the government itself is
                                              be of large benefit to the economy and not too expensive for        guaranteeing employment it cannot force work requirements
                                              the government to do in larger areas such as cities. It must        upon these people. While they are capable of work the fact is
                                              also be noted that parents cannot always work all the time          the jobs will not be there for them.
                                              they are not with their children. Basic needs such as cleaning
                                              and shopping also need to be met which are not always
                                              possible to do with small children when you have more than
No more so than being on a Benefit itself does.   Once their youngest child reaches school, yes. But this should Yes, but it should be accompanied by more stringent medical
                                                  also go hand-in-hand with after-school care subsidies, if      checks at the outset of benefit receipt, to establish that the
                                                  needed.                                                        person is/isn't fit to work, and if they are, to what extent (this
                                                                                                                 however is separate to the irritating once-a-year checkups
                                                                                                                 mentioned previously which ensure we're still disabled).

yes                                               absolutely                                                       yes, however easing into volunteer work, gives a much
                                                                                                                   greater interest in joining work force.
Yes and No - the complexity and structure does disincentivise       NO - most sole parents do an excellent job and, in many           No. If you are sick you need time, help and support to get
people to ask for help when they can't cope thus making their       cases, save the country hundreds of thousands of dollars by:-     better, back on your feet and access to retraining, if that is
situation even worse. Some of the things that do not                * Taking care of their children and putting them into             appropriate. Being punished for getting sick and not taking 2
encourage people to find work are:- * Lack of available jobs        childcare, calling upon the childcare assistance packages         weeks to get better is undermining all that that person has to
in the market * Lack of self confidence and self esteem *           available to working parents. * They often fill voluntary roles   go through. Time is a great healer as is positive support and
Lack of funds to dress for interviews, get transport to and         in community organisations that cannot be filled otherwise        direction to get back in to a job that will suit that person and
from interviews, pay for childcare while away at interviews *       due to the cost to the organisation. *They often volunteer at     enable them to support him or herself and, possibly, his or
Lack of appropriate skills and knowledge for getting back into      their child's school. Can you imagine what problems schools       her family. If you are disabled there may be the ability to
work - wanting higher level study to allow them to focus on         would face it parents did not fill the gaps that teachers and     undertake some form of paid employment BUT these people
getting a better chance of winning a better (paid) job that will    other staff could not fill? It would be chaos and cost the        should never be forced to do something that may cause
fully support them and their family without state assistance        country even more by providing more money for staff in            deterioration to their condition. Being permanently disabled
When people go in to WINZ they * often do not know how              schools. * Why should parents be punished for giving their        means that they have to reassess how they cope with the
to ask for the financial assistance they need to get back to        child or children the best possible starts to their lives -       world and being forced to try and get a job that they may or
work, * face almost insurrmountable barriers to higher level        especially those mothers who, when they were married or in        may not be fully capable of doing is downright wrong. I have
training and study, * get 'attitude' from many overworked           their long-term relationship - had chosen with their then         known disabled people who have been more than capable of
and equally frustrated staff who treat their 'clients' with         partners to be stay at home mothers while the other parent        working either part time or full time and do so. Those who
distain * have to jump through increasingly frustrating             worked. Why should this change just because they are no           don't, more often than not are not capable of doing so
hurdles to prove their eligibilty for added financial assistance    longer with the other parent? * Parents need to be available      without causing further health related problems.
* scared to ask for help in case their benefit is cut It is a no-   to their children at all ages and stages - it is important that
win situation for many beneficiaries.                               one parent familes are supported fully to enable them to be
Yes, abatement levels are too low.                                  Yes, but solely IF and when appropriate to their individual       Perhaps, except in cases of long term disability.
                                                                    family situation.

No. The abatement rate does though.                                 Definitely not. Children need their parents, especially sole      Nope. Forcing people who are sick or have a disability into
                                                                    parents, to be there when at all times.                           work may force them even deeper into depression.

No - it creates barriers to accessing needed payment by       no. The focus should be on the welfare of the child.                    No - the focus should be on their health and wellbeing
making the case manager a sort of potentate who can dictate
what the recipient can and cannot receive, as many recipients
are not experts in the social welfare bureaucracy.
Yes.                                                          No. Research suggests this is a bad idea. Any changes in this   Only if they are able. People are already assessed on their
                                                              area should be research based and not ideologically/PR          ability to work if on a sickness benefit.

The levels are pathetic anyway                                 No there should be more focus on free or cheap childcare,      No, only if support and encouragement is offered rather than
                                                               more generous abatement rates, sole parents have very          coercion.
                                                               specific needs to be able to beneficially move to part time
                                                               work or tertiary study while ensuring children are looked
                                                               after properly.
No. If anything it creates incentives to cheat the system. The Not until the youngest child is school age, and even then they No. They have been deemed unable to work for a reason.
structure needs to be simplified.                              should be encouraged into part-time work during school
                                                               hours. There should be more incentives for this, such as
                                                               increasing the limit for hours/income before the benefit
                                                               drops out.
No, they help people in emergencies. The focus shold be on No.                                                          Yes, but on a co-operative basis, not your kind of
increasing wages, so there is no emergency once in work, not                                                            "incentives", read threats and harrassment.
bleating that it discourages someone to work if they are
worried they won't earn enough to live on.

No                                                        Only if it addresses the factors which prevent parents from    Only benefit abatement rates are adjusted. People need to
                                                          working which are lack of training and issues with finding and see a financial benefit from working and it is unethical to
                                                          paying for childcare. It is important that any requirement to force people to work for nothing.
                                                          work is done on a case by case basis. Sanctions should NOT
                                                          be implemented under any circumstances. Children have the
                                                          right to food, clothing and shelter and community services
                                                          cannot (and should not have to) take on this responsibility -
                                                          they are already overloaded.
Not at all, without some of those supplementary payments   No, they have children to care for, the early years of a child's No, there should be more treatment and help for these
people would suffer.                                       learning are the most important years. Forcing them to work people so they can get better or better deal with the sickness
                                                           will only harm what little family they have, still I would like to or disability that they have.
                                                           see more training opportunities to these sole parents, so
                                                           when there children start school that they too can learn more

Lack of jobs and pay rates create disincentives to work.   No. Bringing up a decent and law abiding child is the         Get real, get able bodied people a job first, productivity and
                                                           beneficial work that all of society stands to gain from.      all that. People with sickness and disablilties already have
                                                                                                                         enough problems.

Could do - because sometimes the cost of going to a part   no                                                            Yes - becase a job could help such persons. But - there are not
time job is more than someone on benefit can afford.                                                                     many employers prepared to have them. Some people do not
                                                                                                                         want to just stack supermarket trolleys, when they could do
                                                                                                                         something meaningful. Employers and Work and Income
                                                                                                                         need to review there acceptance of disabled and unwell
Bring back special benefits.                               No. DPB is about the CHILDREN not the parent.                 Definitely not. Too much stick and not enough carrot in your
                                                                                                                         thinking on this. Look up INVALID in the dictionary.

No but it is inadequate and should be more accessible.     Absolutely not they are needed at home. If they want to work No if they are assisted to get well and they are well enough to
Although what would be better is a higher rate of main     then they should be given extra support and they should      work they will. Thy are not criminals and should not be
benefits.                                                  have access to training that helps them to get high paying   treated as if they were.
                                                             No. My experience as a mother tells me that parenting of             Again this depends on the sickness or disability. Many jobs
                                                             young children is a full time job. If a sole parent is required to   are not suitable for those who are blind or in a wheelchair.
                                                             return to work when her youngest child is 6, that child cannot       Mental illhealth also causes a person to find work stressful.
                                                             be left at home alone if they are sick and the parent must be        Medication may help with the illness but can affect a person's
                                                             home after school and in the holidays. Childcare as an               concentration or alertness. I am certain that most people in
                                                             alternative to any of these situations cost money. A sole            these categories would love to work but the government has
                                                             parent trying to look after a home, cooking, cleaning,               to accept that for some people this is totally unrealistic.
                                                             washing, shopping, hearing homework, taking children to
                                                             sports or music lessons, and holding down a job is very
                                                             demanding and stressful. If the job is in another town from
                                                             grandparents there is little support. Our society gives mixed
                                                             messages. We say parenting is important and yet we say a
                                                             sole parent should put work first.

Again, too complex for many to follow. Supplementary      No. Bringing up children in today's complex and fast moving             Each individuals needs in this regard are unique to them, but
payments would be better replaced by changes in abatement society requires all a parent's attention. however issues such          a more positive abatement system would assist those able to
and tax regimes                                           as schooling and health should be relevant to ongoing receipt           undertake some work, (and more hopefullyas they recover,
                                                          of a benefit-that is, parents on sole parent benefits need to           without negative penalty)
                                                          maintain good standards for their children to continue to
                                                          receive a benefit, such as attendance for immunisation,
                                                          attendance at school and so on. This is fraught with difficulty,
                                                          I know, but needs to be addressed for those minority of sole
                                                          parents who don't take their responsibilites seriously. It may
                                                          be a way to ensure that such people at risk are reached and
                                                          worked with.

Clearly it does - it rewards the wrong things and punishes   Emphatically YES - as soon as possible.                              In principal YES! It clearly depends on the circumstances but
genuine citizens.                                                                                                                 total reliance on a benefit is to be discouraged FOR THE SAKE
                                                                                                                                  OF THE DEPENDANT.
yes                                                           advantage couples over single individuals with tax incentives no

No I'm really struggling to clothe my kids. I want to work.   Why not provide more incentives. WFF could be made to a      That's a tough one. Depends on how fit they are to work.
                                                              reasonable rate. $80 a week should be $120 a week top-up.    Better rehabilitation may work.
See above.   Yes.                                                          Yes.

Yes          I would class it as retraining. Give them more skills. Find   Depends on the level of their disability. Sickness should only
             something they are good at and encourage them to retrain      be for a short time. Disabled people is a different category.
             and become independant. The welfere systems has not           If by sickness you mean depression or mental illness this is
             taught them to stand up and be strengthened and go            different as it is a very serious part of our society at present
             forward.                                                      These and those recovering from opertations should be the
                                                                           only ones on Sickness.
Yes.   Yes, particularly for parents of school-age children, unless   Yes, where it is appropriate.
       they are verifably engaged in productive volunteer work or
Obviously for those who know how to manipulate the system         Of course, however the political consequence makes this         This depends largely on the nature of the sickness or
to advantage a good living can be developed by capitilising on    almost impossible in a society so ingrained with the "Victim"   disability and again this comes down to genuine targeting
all the supplimentary benefits on offer. Those that do this of    mentality. It is so obvious and that obviousness is reflected   and responsible medical practioners. Politically I doubt there
course are again the career benefit recipients and can always     in the statistics available in most departments associated      is a willingness by any party to attemp a major overhaul of
be heard proclaiming that they are entitled to this and that      with welfare that can target very accurately those in genuine   this sector of beneficiary.
and why should they work when the employers are making            need and those that fall into the lifestyler group. There are
so much money from the workers (which of course these folk        hundreds of sole parents who work and maintain a family so
are not). Benefits should be generous to enable those who         it is very clearly acheivable but there are so many more that
are genuinely in need of support to get back on their feet, but   do not deserve taxpayer support and should be required to
limited in terms of added payments and as mentioned earlier       undertake work offered and if declined lose the benefit and
should be limited in terms of actual cash payments and more       responsibility reverts to parents, or the absent parent and
in payment of services provided and food support.                 sole parent.

How it is administered by WINZ is often the problem. Often it Yes providing that re education is part of the focus and not        No the present push to take diabled people from disability
is administered in such a way as to save money for the        just pushing people into work without proper preparation.           and push them into work has caused some people that will
department and not help the benificiary.                                                                                          never be able to work such as mental illness to become
                                                                                                                                  terrified. This is inapropriate behaviour on the part of the
                                                                                                                                  department for these people. This is a dangerous policy that
                                                                                                                                  is at present being administerd in a most cruel way.

Yes. One benefit category and one calculation formula.            Yes. Children are not a disability nor are they the first       Yes. The focus on paid work should be consistent and right
                                                                  responsibility of the state. A parent's first responsibility    behind the focus on providing an acceptable standard of
                                                                  should be to provide for themselves and their children. Sole    living for all beneficiaries.
                                                                  parents should be expected to find work! It is illogical that
                                                                  two parents living together get paid less than parents living
I live and work outside of the benefit system so don't         Yes, or better follow my suggestion above, to eliminate the   Yes. Ultimately, there is only really one type of benefit, and
understand how complex the system is. We are above the         DPB and regard unemployed solo mothers as unemployed.         that is an unemployment benefit. Reasons for unemployment
threshold for everything, and even if I was near the threshold                                                               are then twofold -- either the recipient is able and work-
I would prefer to earn more and be allowed to keep it instead                                                                ready, or the recipient is not able. If the recipient has a
of jumping through hoops to get bugger all.                                                                                  medical condition, is that condition curable or not. If the
                                                                                                                             recipient is an alcoholic or addicted to other substances, they
                                                                                                                             need to go to rehab until they are work-ready. This would
                                                                                                                             require a mammoth extension of rehab facilities throughout
                                                                                                                             the nation. If this approach is followed, it would become
                                                                                                                             readily apparent that there are few people who are genuinely
                                                                                                                             incapable of work.

Yes, refer answer to question 8.                              Yes. As previously mentioned, they should work to support Yes, if possible given their issues, as this would assist their
                                                              themselves or have family support them to a much older age. mental health. If unable to find paid work all beneficiaries
                                                              Possibly also financial incentives for completing schooling or should be expected to do some kind of community work.
                                                              work related study courses (paid on successful completion).

Yes - ti also encourages lying to WINZ. Many people who are NO - not until the children are 5 and at school full time.       Yes. Even if all this work if state/community work. Nearly all
in relationships claim they are single in order to get more                                                                  disabled people want to work but can't find employers willing
money.                                                                                                                       to employ them and many sickness beneficiaries do not want
                                                                                                                             to work and are not actually unable to work, but are unable
                                                                                                                             to work in their 'chosen' field. If I become unable to do my
                                                                                                                             job I will do another job because I do not want to be on a
                                                                                                                             benefit. WINZ should employ full time GPs to assess if people
                                                                                                                             are really sick or not.
This needs to be judged on an individual basis – certainly it’s   No this is political point scoring – single parents already have Yes- many people with disabilities would love to work
not a good thing for people to turn to WINZ before thinking       an important job to do, and already feel the negative effects however struggle in a competitive job market.
about other ways of finding some more cash. However               of being out of work without having added pressure from the
sometimes people are truly in need.                               government and WINZ.

Yes, people lose their supp allowances pretty quickly yet         I find this offensive and discriminatory against sole parents.      Yes, as frequently people's options are seen as limited.
suddenly have to buy better clothes for work and pay fro          Working is good if you receive an adequate wage/salary and          Some people will need extra resources to support them in
transport etc.                                                    have access to good child care. This is not the case for a lot of   their work and the raft of packages at the moment are bulky,
                                                                  people. Parenting well is a crucial job that suports the            cumbersome, obfuscatory, hard to navigate and not flexible
                                                                  economy, I think It should be about what ensures the parents        around individual needs and wants.
                                                                  and children are as healthy and well supported as possible.
                                                                  And I'm not a solo parent.

Yes                                                               Yes                                                                 Definately yes
•	ometimes. Hardship assistance is of great help when there         Y                                                    W
                                                                   •	es to gain work skills as many have never worked •	 & I        Y
                                                                                                                                   •	es, some clients report that doctors have been pressured
are emergencies •	here is a mindset among some                     needs to have a closer liaison with employers to link           into signing forms for sickness benefits especially where
beneficiaries that W & I will pay for expenses that they                                      W
                                                                   beneficiaries and work •	 ork provides money and also           gangs are involved. Two doctors sign/authorise sickness and
cannot meet. This does not encourage a sense of saving,            builds self esteem and self worth                               invalid benefits when there is no possibility the client can
responsibility or desire to change their circumstances                                                                                                                        R
                                                                                                                                   work to prevent intimidation by clients •	ealistic
•	ontinued advances (from W & I) paid to clients for the                                                                           expectations for people with mental health issues - not all
same thing such as power shows that the client is not                                                                                                      B
                                                                                                                                   can hold down a job •	 etter ways of recognising the
prioritizing spending •	ome clients have been on a TAS                                                                             difference between some clients with disabilities who are not
(Temporary Additional Support) for over two years                                                                                  able to work and those who do not want to
•	hallenging the perception held by some people caught in a
cycle of poverty who see their children as an asset •	ay
Family Tax Credits straight to child’s school to pay for child’s
fees, uniform costs and school lunches, doctor and chemist

Difficult to precise. Not without research evidence first.         Yes absolutely.                                                 It should be voluntary basis.

Everyone wants to work and contribute to society the current       The focus on money is what is wrong here. Work should be        The focus on money is what is wrong here. Work should be
system, the complexities, the bureaucracy, the total disregard     about life, it should be about matching people with work that   about life, it should be about matching people with work that
for the value of people ~ it is disempowering beneficiary's.       empowers them. Work that matches their talents, skills,         empowers them. Work that matches their talents, skills,
The system has no tools to discover what truly motivates           strengths and passion. Initially this might require matching    strengths and passion. Initially this might require matching
individuals, what strengths, talents and passions they would       people with volunteer work experience.                          people with volunteer work experience.
like to contribute.
Definitely. 3 generations now see the benefit as a way of life, Absolutely - from age 5 all sole parents should be declined    Definitely. Half the benefit should be paid in the form of
not to work for a living.                                       further benefits.                                              training/job ready courses.

Yes - the Child Disability Allowance is the example i see.     Yes but i do not know much about this area.                     Yes . These people need to be case managed carefully into
                                                                                                                               work they are suited to do. What concerns alot of these
                                                                                                                               people is that they will be asked to work in an area they
                                                                                                                               cannot physically or mentally cope with.

They do for a certain type of beneficiary i.e. those who       Yes, but in a supportive way that takes people's different       Yes, but once again on a case by case basis.
"work" the system, and are actually the ones who seem to       circumstances into account. There are some solo parents
recieve the most help. Questions about wether people drink,    who will use any excuse not to work, but others for whom
use drugs and smoke should feature largely in requests for     genuine and long term barriers will persist. I think there
supplementary help with verification able to be sought from    should be flexibility, including the inclusion of voluntary work
an independant source if case manager deems this necessary.    in any work testing requirement and maybe a subsidy for
There are far too many people spending their benefit in the    voluntary agencies to play an "on the job training" role for
pub, on drugs, pokies etc and then successfully approaching    suitable candidates with the view of their eventually moving
WINZ for food grants, and advances for the needs the           on to use skills gained in the paid workforce. I think work
benefit is designed to meet. Legislation should allow for      brokers should be far more pro active in working with work
asset testing, and those with assets not being eligible. In    ready solo parents to move them into paid work.
other words if someone has a car or house they should be
required to liquidate rather than expecting supplementary
They are barely adequate now! And what work? Please show       Hell no! 1. The cost of childcare wipes out any good work          This is a tricky one, most people that are sick or ill are
me where these jobs are coming from? With decent pay that      does. 2. Family usually pick up the childcare slack. 3. If they    genuinely so. I would love to tell you to find jobs for the able
would even come close to being able to sustain a family? or    are made to work, watch the number of kids left home alone,        bodied before picking on the sick and infirm, but populist
hours that would even allow a family to remain together?       or given up for adoption and taken by CYFS 4.A single mum          politics so it may fall on deaf ears. However, I would love a
                                                               with any kid under six its a full time job in its own right, you   chance at self employment, but this is what I come up
                                                               are essentially asking that person to do the job of two.           against: 1. I have chronic pain, I am not allowed to drive a
                                                                                                                                  car, walk alone or be in charge of any machinery due to the
                                                                                                                                  pain meds I take, they barely work so I spend my days barely
                                                                                                                                  coping, everytime my little girl wants to play I bend down and
                                                                                                                                  am nearly blinded by pain, I am this way due to a treatment
                                                                                                                                  injury and an accident. ACC won't pay me out because they
                                                                                                                                  use doctors who know all ACC want is to have you off their
                                                                                                                                  books, so the doctors state pre-exsisting and Im stuck on an
                                                                                                                                  invalids benefit. I have a masters in science, no one will
                                                                                                                                  employ anyone with an ACC claim, let alone my problems, so
                                                                                                                                  my only option is self employment however see point 2. 2. I
                                                                                                                                  also have dual diagnoses mental problems, long history,
                                                                                                                                  which makes it no fun for anyone in a work environment to
                                                                                                                                  be around me, so self employment is looking even better, see
                                                                                                                                  point 3. 3. I have Chronic Chron's Disease, which means that I
No- low wages provide a disincentive to work. And the loss of No- they have more than enough unpaid work on their                 Only if they can do so without harming their health further.
job security in 90 day legislation doesn't help either.       plates. Caring for children is crucial for our economy's and
                                                              society's future.
Yes           Yes                                                          See above as noted in the report there are significant
                                                                           numbers of people in the workforce who are managing with
                                                                           sickness and disability. This information should be noted but
                                                                           the focus should be on surmountable barriers to work which
                                                                           may be "health" or it may be other things (educational, self
                                                                           esteeem etc)

Don't know.   Yes, BUT I believe that parents should be with their offspring Yes, I know from personal experience that a focus on
              until school age. Benefits of a stay at home parent to the     something OTHER than being sick or disabled quickens the
              child are enormous and feeds into our society.                 receovery process.
                                                                                                                          I am concerned that invalid benefit too much negative name
                                                                                                                          of type of benefit as should adopt more positive title that
                                                                                                                          make impossible to enter workforce due negative title. Top
                                                                                                                          up wages too little and low paid prove barrier by existing tax
                                                                                                                          threshold on S tax code was always not receiving tax cut due
                                                                                                                          left out by successive government. It should more non
                                                                                                                          barrier form of better managed top up wages while on part
                                                                                                                          time employment.

No. The disincentives to work come from sources outside the I am not qualified to speak on this; however I believe the    I believe in order to answer this question, one needs to go
benefit system - e.g. lack of health; Refer my answer to Q4 community could support sole parents by providing part time   back to first principles. That is, what are the goals or
above.                                                      employment in conjunction with part time care for their       objectives of the benefit system as set out in Q1. Clearly, if a
                                                            children.                                                     person is incapable or indeed DISCOURAGED from seeking
                                                                                                                          employment by prospective employers then there should not
                                                                                                                          be a focus on paid work for people managing with a sickness
                                                                                                                          or disability as this is distracting resources from the primary
Yes.   Yes; I accept in some areas child friendly work is hard to find.   This I struggle with more, being a health professional and
       There must be some way to help sole parents balance the            seeing the difficulties many people contend with.Illness and
       needs of their kids with contributing in some way-even if they     disability are often highly variable and sensitive to a variety of
       get "recruited" to their local schools to help in classrooms       factors that may aggrevate underlying long term conditions. I
       etc. Giving more money for each child is not an incentive to       think the focus should be on supporting them if they are able
       get out to work-you need to find a balance; the house costs        work without making it hard if that is for a reletively short
       the same to heat/light etc whether there are 2 or 4 kids.          period. The system is not particularly compassionate-people
                                                                          struggling with illness and disabilty contend with stigma and
                                                                          barriers that are not of their choosing and by far the majority
                                                                          would prefer to be well and working.

Yes    Only when the children are over say 12 years of age, I believe Yes
       that all children need parents up to this age, otherwise for
       children under 5 years, we are creating a generation of
       children with Rejection, thus having a "chip on their
       shoulder" for the rest of their lives.
Does the benefit system do enough to encourage personal       How can delivery agencies better support people into work?     Are there lessons from an insurance approach for the benefit
responsibility?                                                                                                              system?

Open-Ended Response                                           Open-Ended Response                                            Open-Ended Response
Possibly not. But this can only be done through genuine       Get alongside them. Don't stand over them.                     I'm not sure what is meant by that questin. That we should all
encouragement, not through harrassment.                                                                                      pay into a fund in order to qualify? Paying taxes is just that.

Yes they do.                                                  Help them, don't punish them                                   What not to do.

It must as most people get off benefits as fast as they can. As referred to above, fostering involvement in volunteering
Some of these questions reflect concerns with what is surely (and Time bank is the obvious example with its organised
a minority group among beneficiaries.                        system of social credits) maintains and develops work skills,
                                                             maintains and develops networks that help people both
                                                             identify their range of skills and work niches in their
                                                             community. Better vocational guidance and mentoring of
                                                             people embarking on employment.
On whose part? The recipient, employers, the government or More training, more education, more help in over-coming                Yes. The insurance approach provides a lesson in how not to
the rest of society for not giving them a fair choice of options, illnesses or disability, more appropriate job opportunities.    deal with benefits. it advantages those who manage to get
or for creating stresses that lead to them being unemployed,                                                                      reasobnable jobs amongst the generally linited opportunites,
invalided or sick? The issue is not that recipents should be                                                                      and undermines the numbers of people who will inevitably
more responsible, it's that they should eb given more positive                                                                    be unemployed - especially in a context of limited job
and practical support.                                                                                                            opportunities.

no - it doesn't. Well not for the many who fall in the low-      Be affirming, positive and follow up 'strongly' to educate the
socio groups particularly amongst maori and pacific island       best option for a better life is to work. Provide professional
groups. it doesn't not encourage personal responsibiliy for      development Mentoring ongoing Reward people to stay in
fathers who's partners is on the dbp - and living apart in       employment Target the young people early from age 15yrs
order for the mother to receive the benefit and anything else    and paint a picture of what employment can provide you
they can access. When mothers on dpb have children who           with - better lifestyle and wellbeing.
then become mothers themselves - this is not being
responsible. it does not allow for the young people to aspire
to be the best they can be especially when leaving high
school and the only benefit they receive is the 'best money'
they have ever received.
With the work focus on dpb that is to take effect on 27th of      I think that the training incentive allowance should be          No go as welfare primarily deals with the most vulnerable
September 2010 is what has been done to create personal           reinstated for all levels not just level 4 and lower as the $500 groups in less or greater forms
responsibility. But I think the other benefits will be reviewed   interest loan isn't enough to entice a long welfare person, like
next year.                                                        a scholarship on courses that have a real skill shortage i.e.
                                                                  nursing or science that will lead direct and good

No! The overall concept of the benefit system as providing an Introduce competition and payment by results.                      Yes - welfare insurance should be promoted more forcefully
unconditional entitlement to long-term income support                                                                            but only in conjunction with a change to the welfare system
should be replaced with a welfare replacement system based                                                                       based on the principle that for those who can work, only
on the principle that for those who can work, only work                                                                          work should pay.
should pay.
                                                              The key considerations in shaping the employment behaviour
                                                              of beneficiaries are the state of the economy, and hence the
                                                              availability of jobs, the adequacy and security of income, and
                                                              the availability of childcare. •	ublic policy focuses on
                                                              achieving full employment •	 enefit levels are adequate,
                                                              reducing chance of stress and ill-health •	urther develop
                                                              collaborative arrangements with specialised community-
                                                              based organisations •	reat benefit recipients with dignity;
                                                              WINZ staff failing to do so (this would be independently
                                                              monitored by surveying benefit recipients) to face disciplinary
                                                              procedures •	xtend provision of high quality, free childcare
                                                              (the expense of childcare over the 20 free hours can still be
                                                              prohibitive for sole parents wanting to work more than 20
                                                              hours •	rovide high quality, free (or affordable) supervision
                                                              for children during school holidays •	ducate benefit
                                                              recipients who have caring responsibilities about their "right
                                                              to request" flexible working arrangements under Part 6AA of
                                                              the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements)
                                                              Amendment Act 2007. •	nsure beneficiaries have the skills
                                                              (through assisted education and training) required to take on
                                                              the available decent jobs •	 reater allowance for sole parents
I feel after what I have already said you will know my answer After my response to question 12 I consider it is not up to         I find this absolutely wrong if the benefit system was efficient
to this question. I very strongly believe that the current    delivery agencies to support people into work. It is up to the      and used as I said as a very last resort. I do not know of
benefit system does absolutely nothing to encourage person individual to provide for themselves and a benefit should be           anyone who objects assisting others in society if they really
responsibility and there needs to be a major overhaul of the as a very last resort not the first port of call. If the benefits,   need that assistance. It is my thought that the benefit system
entire benefit system.                                        especially Domestic Purpose plus the supplementary                  has been over many years so abused and misused the original
                                                              allowances were not so generous many would soon decide              purpose of the system has disappeared. If the original
                                                              working was a better option.                                        purpose of the welfare system were reinstated there would
                                                                                                                                  be no need for any insurance approach. I would also object to
                                                                                                                                  any of my taxes being used in any way for this approach after
                                                                                                                                  my own experiences in life supporting myself. I find this
                                                                                                                                  approach extremely objectionable.
this is an extremely individualistic statement. The benefit      Help create appropriate work for them -work that allows           yes
system is a nightmare. It is still very degrading to be          them to develop their potential and contribute their unique
subjected to the paternalistic, patronising systems and          gifts to our society
structures that are our benefit system.It is still very much one
size fits all and does not in any way, shape or form
acknowledge the diversity of ethnic groups that make up our
society let alone the needs of parents to care for their
children, let alone the massive difficulties faced by many in
finding any work let alone something that even vaguely
matches their abilities and allows them to develop potential.

No. Some people require benefits due to bad luck (such as         By combining incentives and discouragements. Beneficiaries       Yes. There needs to be a change in attitude about the welfare
widows or widowers), and these are usually well aware of          should be better off when they work than when they are           system. Too many people see it as a right and a way of
their responsibilities. However, a significant proportion of      welfare recipients. In addition, those who make insufficient     funding alternative lifestyles. The welfare system needs to be
beneficiaries have made bad choices (of partner or leaving        effort to obtain and retain employment should have their         seen as a cooperative function of society, to be used when
school early), or have unreal expectations (of living long-term   welfare reduced. Where possible, welfare payments should         needed and supported by everybody at all other times. An
on welfare). These latter two groups do not seem to accept        be based on “Work for the Dole” principles so that there is an   insurance type system gives people a sense of ownership and
their responsibilities and the welfare system seems reluctant     easy transition from “Welfare Work” to “Paid Employment”.        also implies that failure to support in in the good times
to require these groups to be responsible for their own                                                                            reduces the benefits in times of hardship. The Swiss system
welfare.                                                                                                                           does not give any benefits until taxpayers have been
                                                                                                                                   contributing for a significant period, so no school-leavers can
                                                                                                                                   go directly onto welfare payments. Once benefits have been
                                                                                                                                   earned, they may be used in many different ways when
                                                                                                                                   recipients are between jobs. Often they are used to support
                                                                                                                                   additional education.
Many, but not all people, who become beneficiaries are          Many have expressed alarm about the reduction of jobs in        New Zealand’s system of flat rate benefits, financed by
among the most disadvantaged people in our society. We do       the public service workforce and how this will impact on high   taxation, is envied by many other countries. A review of
not support a stronger sanctions-based approach. Sanctions      rates of unemployment especially among young people and         the Canadian system of unemployment Insurance provides
rarely work and will have negative consequences. There are      Māori and Pacific Islanders. The directions heralded in the     some very important insights in regard to the insurance
already obligations in the current systems and people are       WWG and the recent amendments to the Social Security Act        approach that the WWG are to examine. What was learnt
aware of them. If they are reasonable, there will be adequate   with a renewed focus on getting people off benefits and         from the Canadian insurance experience is that
compliance with them. Harsh sanctions will amount to            pressuring people into work, coupled with fewer staff will      unemployment insurance overall works in favour of middle
beneficiaries feeling they are being victimised or blamed for   place more pressure on workers at the front line and not        class workers. Many low income workers were excluded
their personal circumstances and will be counter-productive     enable them to work with beneficiaries to deliver good          because of they did not meet the qualifications. Many
                                                                outcomes.                                                       unemployed persons were not covered for benefits (e.g. the
                                                                                                                                self-employed); and others had exhausted their benefits or
                                                                                                                                did not work long enough to qualify. The principle of
                                                                                                                                entitlement to social security was not achieved after the GFC
                                                                                                                                in Canada and the unemployment insurance fund was tipped
                                                                                                                                into deficit. The benefit replacement rates dropped
                                                                                                                                markedly from the initial rate of 85% of previous earnings to
                                                                                                                                between 45- 60% of previous earnings. Furthermore in
                                                                                                                                Canada there has been almost an outright exclusion by
                                                                                                                                employment insurance companies in supporting active labour
                                                                                                                                market polices. This is the very opposite of the approach that
                                                                                                                                is needed. My biggest concern about an insurance model is
I doubt that this is a Benefit System duty, so much as one for                                                                In my observations, private systems usually cost the country
wider society.                                                                                                                more when all aspects are taken into account and this would
                                                                                                                              be of concern in this area too.

It doesn't understand and address the barriers people face       more time with individuals - more access into training and
adequately                                                       education, more resources to make this possible
The benefit discourages personal responsibility because it          R
                                                                 (1)	ecognize the person’s life circumstances and that there      No.
fails to provide sufficient funding to allow personal dignity.   will be times when it is inappropriate to push for entrance
                                                                 into paid work. (2)Provide financial support for education.
                                                                 (3)Assist with career pathways and encourage and
                                                                 financially support education pathways towards this career.
                                                                 (4)Provide incentives for progress towards career pathways.
                                                                 (5)Provide work experiences (6)Above all recognize when
                                                                 people are trying their best to make progress.

Is this is a reference to the need for us all to be highly       this question presumes an employment market waiting for          Yes - the lessons are that this system is not one that any fair
individuated independent beings? No such creature exists -       applicants? In the absence of full employment and                society can contemplate. That we are considering the
we only exist in community. there is no doubt that some of       worthwhile jobs I think that agencies may be better served       American model when that country is in such disarray and
us are able to achieve a measure of "personal responsibility"    supporting people in education and in treating their situation   has a growing underclass- fills me with horror. We
but we never do this on our own - we all benefit from the        with dignity.                                                    constantly need to ask "what kind of society do we want"?
work and care of others. As parents we do need to take                                                                            We already have an unequal society - the insurance model
responsiblity for our children and a primary goal of the                                                                          would ensure growth in that inequality.
benefit system must be to ensure their needs are
safeguarded and not subject to their parent's employment
- again Box 4. But also, what is meant by personal                -learn thorough well honed interviewing skills and engage the   -I don't believe so since the two approaches are not
responsibility in relatinship to employment? I myself believe     person from the start about the purpose of enrolment, how it    compatable. Yes, it will cost the country to continue to help
that if the job was something the person felt they had the        works, what is expected, time frames etc. -go to work with      all of its vulnerable citizens equally through tough patches in
capacity to do they would want to b e employed. In my time        reluctant job seekers on their first few days until they're     their working lives, but we all pay tax, one way or another.
in NZ Employment many years ago I can recall only one or          feeling a bit accepted and settled,and have worked out the      Ensuring the welfare of its citizens is still an obligation on the
two older women who did not want to work and simply               bus timetables, kids care etc. - work with individual           state be it perhaps an old fashioned one. Insurance on the
wanted benefit. - wanting to work, taking responsibility for      employers to prepare the environemnt for both employer          other hand assumes a payment in time of need out of a
looking for it as best they know often isn't enough to reach      and employee as well as possible. - don't assume reading        reserve set aside for this purpose. THis should be of right, a
across the divide. The system needs to be pro-active with         and writing skill levels                                        benefit of belonging in NZ. As well the concept does not sit
each client.                                                                                                                      well when applied to those who simply are not able to work
                                                                                                                                  and require continuous on-going financial support.

No but not the responsibility of the benefit system alone. It     Case managers and training for them Training for                Yes
is also a public health responsibilty, a primary health care      beneficeries Understanding eg that it costs money to go to
responsibility, a community mental health clinic responsibilty,   training or to job interviews etc ( e g transport, clothes,
a pastor responsibilty etc                                        grooming, reading glasses)
                                                                                                                                   VicLabour sees much benefit in taking inspiration from
                                                                                                                                   overseas sustainable welfare models, most notably rights
                                                                                                                                   based and insurance based approaches. We believe New
                                                                                                                                   Zealand’s current residualist focus is inefficient. More
                                                                                                                                   importantly it is highly ineffective in achieving true social
                                                                                                                                   justice. A compulsory public levy based welfare system, much
                                                                                                                                   like ACC, could provide revenue to enable a holistic and
                                                                                                                                   comprehensive welfare service to citizens.

I am very concerned that the Working Group seems to have        By delivering services with respect for the individual, treating   Absolutely I think the biggest lesson is that New Zealanders
brought into the idea that "beneficiaries need a good kick up   each client as a valuable and worthwhile human being, by           don't want to pay extra tax The Canadian example is a clear
the arse", and the implication that they are not taking         offering help before criticism and accusation, and believing in    illustration that many people won't qualify for the assistance
responsibility for their circumstances. It is essential that    the will of people to achieve their goals. By ensuring that a      when they are out of work. Also the reason that most people
people in receipt of benefit are treated as people, are given   programme is put in place to give everyone access to a             claim benefit means that there are many people for whom
responsibility and control of their money, and are given all    computer and broadband to assist with both their job skills,       the scheme would not work and thus there would be an even
the tools and information to make good and well informed        job search, and communication with agencies. BY ensuring           more complex two tier system to negotiate.
decisions about their work and other options. The system        that people have a case manager with whom they can
does remove personal responsibility in terms of many choices    develop a relationship and have booked and on time
such as how job search will be done, what is best for an        appointments. By addressing the interaction between child
independent youth to do, and what sole parents need to do       support and family tax credits so that custodial parents are
to become work ready. The 27 September changes focus            not penalised by the non payment by the non custodial
strongly on the removal of personal responsibility and choice   parent.
and replace this with case manager direction, I believe that
this is an unwise move as the removal of ownership and
personal responsibility will in some cases result in
oppositional behaviour, or the compliant and merely
adequate response, and that this may trap people on the
benefit and in a compliance cycle with MSD. The ID
standards which are now required further depersonalise and
disempower people in receipt of benefit removing more
My research (Humpage 2010) into public attitudes towards           1. Instead of implementing a 'work-first' approach, there         Again, responses to this question are going to be difficult to
the welfare state and social citizenship rights suggests that      should be a much greater focus on active labour market            analyse because you do not define what is meant by an
the idea of 'personal responsibility' can be defined in multiple   programmes that focus on real training (not just 'how to          'insurance approach'. I categorically disagree with the idea of
ways and that most New Zealanders do not define this in            write a CV') for jobs that are in demand or meet future labour    uemployment insurance provided by private providers. I also
regards to individuals taking up paid work, as the government      market needs. This means huge investment upfront in               have major concerns about any direct link between past
might. Rather, the most important responsibility they see for      established vocational and tertiary training programmes,          employment history (and insurance contributions) and
individuals is caring for their family and children. As such,      rather than short courses. 2. There should also be much           unemployment assistance coverage. However, there are
responses to this question (where 'personal responsibility'        greater interface between Work & Income, the Department           possibly some lessons to be learned from the Accident
remains undefined) are unlikely to produce any useful data.        of Labour and employers regarding the barriers they face(         Compensation Corporation model in the way it was originally
In my view, the benefit system does not promote personal           including attitudinal ones) to disabled/sick/sole parent          envisioned as a public liability insurance.
responsibility of the kind we might associate with                 workers. 3. Transitional supports (regarding supplments for
independence and self-reliance because it actually removes         accommodation, childcare, other types of family assistance)
choice from many benefit recipients when it places                 should be reassessed to ensure income adequacy and provide
conditions on benefit receipt. For example, forcing an             some security of income as benefit recipients make the jump
unemployment benefit recipient to go to so many job                from a benefit to work. 4. Greater focus should be placed on
interviews or take a job that is not suited to their skills        minimum wage and employment conditions at the national
actually diminishes their sense of agency, rather than             level New Zealand's highly deregulated labour market and
encouraging them to take pro-active steps to change their          economy which does not allow employers to offer security or
employment situation. My research (Humpage 2010)                   decent incomes to many of their workers. 5. Investment
suggests that New Zealanders support education and                 should be made in publicly-funded quality childcare or
incentives rather than coercive punishments (such as work-         provide far more substantial subsidies for private provision of
This question is a leading question.. At the root of               It is forgotten that the case manager would not have a job if     Do not know enough to answer.
responsibity is response . Response is to something or             there was no beneficiary. I do not like the word support.
someone that is in relationship to them . To respond is a verb     Beneficiaries, people with idenitities, need "enablers" or
, being responsible is conditional on a person making a            those who stand alongside them to assist them to empower
response. There is noone or nothing to respond to in a             themselves. Often the situations people found themselves in
system . A system is not a relationship. Until people are          and that brought them to WINZ in the first place were caused
valued and seen as people nothing will happen .                    by events outside of their own control. They were most likely
Furthermore the attitude that WINZ takes towards                   to be a time of stress and uncertainty. The role would be to
beneficiaries is outdated it is based on the premise that          help after addressing the immediate needs, would be to help
beneficiaries are not able to determine what is best for them.     the beneficiary discover what they need for their new
                                                                   situation recognising as 1.4 states , the needs for financial
                                                                   and other support if appropriate. A number of regular
                                                                   meetings with the same case manager should be put in place
                                                                   to determine the decisions that lead to fulfillment of these
                                                                   needs. To facilitate this the case manager needs to provide
                                                                   information about where the expertise or service can be
                                                                   accessed. This creates relationship.
It talks about it but only in the context of non-provision or to Get rid of the "do goody" attitude. Stop viewing essential         It works for a wealthy community during economic boom
question the need to retaining assistance programmes or          community services as charities to be provided by unpaid           periods , especially because the industry has a stucture
develop them at all.                                             volunteers, ( employment abuse) and the provision of such          similar to The "Ponzi" Scheme. (See answer to question1)
                                                                 services as optional privilages and start viewing their role as    There are 3 levels each "governed" in different ways.
                                                                 providers of the service to recipients as of right. ( eg           Insurance programmes are attractive to the ( economic)
                                                                 provision of meals on school and secondary school premises.        "elite" in most countries, because they have the capital and
                                                                 These need not be free services but would be easier to             can "buy" democracy. Mega schemes work for the middle
                                                                 subsidise to meet individual needs. Most WINZ food grants,         class, especially those (CEOs etc) with the best paying
                                                                 public transport etc use a loadble swipe card for payment.         occupations that allow them to put a sizable proportion of
                                                                 This could be extended forinto schools for essentail services. I   their income into a insurance scheme. The "Insurance" model
                                                                 understand CPAG support this idea.                                 works well for a community that recieve living wages and
                                                                                                                                    salaries that enable the majority of people to afford to save a
                                                                                                                                    larger portion of their income, to be recalled in times of need.
                                                                                                                                    However they create deprived communities. Insurance
                                                                                                                                    shemes developed in deprived ( low wage) economies are
                                                                                                                                    more open to and attract corruption, especially in working
                                                                                                                                    poor and unstable employment environments cannot
                                                                                                                                    support insurance systems because they do not get paid
                                                                                                                                    enough to put any money aside. ( see the sub prime
                                                                                                                                    mortgage system for home ownership). There is also a flow
                                                                                                                                    on effect of restricted ability for the community to support a
No.                                                              Sickness and Invalids. Change name to Living benefit.              This is a private issue for those who can afford it.
                                                                 KEY. No person receives a benefit without regular follow up.
                                                                 Doctors should be the ones to pay these people. The doctors
                                                                 should receive the money for beneficiaries and the client
                                                                 should receive it regularly by AP as now, BUT there should be
                                                                 check ups in place such as maybe the client visits monthly for
                                                                 accountability and a nurse visits the home quarterly or 1/2
                                                                 yearly depending on the client' level of need; at present there
                                                                 is no follow up and I despair for the vulnerable trying to
                                                                 manage their lives. WINZ is the most unwelcoming,
                                                                 unsympathetic, cold and hard to reach venue.
                                                                 Unemployment. As of right. KEY. No money ever goes to a
                                                                 person without some form of committment and leaving
                                                                 home to get it. Change name of benefit to LIVING benefit.
                                                                 A student leaves school and goes direct to a Community
                                                                 Center where they register and receive payment. In return,
                                                                 the individual prepares job applications; attends a training
                                                                 course, or further learning; or [A work scheme] old idea
                                                                 revived; or voluntary positions eg meals on wheels or
                                                                 provides Daycare for children of solo mothers or working
What encourages personal responsibility is high self esteem. Childcare, centralised non bureaucratic agencies.   Yes, this means an increase in inequality in a society.
Looking down on beneficiaries or making them feel that they
are a burdon on the state will not create more personally
responsible people.
Meaning not clear. I don't see any necessary connection
between level of personal responsibility and income eg
higher benefits discourage personal responsibility. It is much
more complicated than that. Opportinities in life up to going
on a benefit are obviously very important.

Personal Responsability is important. And some people are        Provide a job club where people have access to telephones,   The capitalist model doesn't work. We need to look at an
so demoralised and feel they are failures in living so they      paper & envelopes, stamps and use of computers. There        individuals unemployment wholistically and understand the
need personal responsability encouraged. The program for         would be an advisor who would help with employment forms     many compnents of causation. You can't have employees
workers to enable peole to get jobs does a lot to encourage      and maintain a positive atmosphere. The centre would         paying for this insurance while they get low wages. Don't
confidence and so a person may assume personal                   provide drinks and encouragement.                            know much about this but have opinions
Much research suggests that most people would prefer to                                                                      Not in my view. The welfare state should be the safety net for
work if suitable work is available and their commitments                                                                     those in need and it should be funded from the taxes that
allow this.                                                                                                                  those of us lucky enough to have employment and health

Personal responsibility' for what? Do recipients of National    Doesn't this depend on whether paid work is available in the An insurance approach can usefully complement a pay-as-you-
Superannuation lack responsibility?                             first instance? Isn't that the major hurdle?                 go system but it can never replace it.

The welfare benefit system is not meant to create personal      The most important issue to remember here is that if         Definately not Stay away from insurance models they will
responsibility. It is intended to releive hardship. Real jobs   someone is unemployed for a long time time it is WINZ that   not and do not work for social services.
leads to personal responsibility.                               has failed not the unemployed person. It is WINZ that has
                                                                not done it,s job if someone who is able to work does not.

Before asking this question perhaps the better question  Giving them adequate resources to pursue their job serach - An insurance approach will disadvantage the poor &
would be to ask what the system can do to empower people access to internet, a telephone. Teaching them to put         powerless, the young & the unskilled.
to take responsibility for their own lives?              together a CV, basic computing & interview skills. Organising
No, it is too easy to get a Benefit. The level of the benefit   By focussing more on rehabititation. The ACC model is an          Yes. Insurance Companies are a business and aim to make a
needs to be set so that people are not "too comfortable".       excellent example of how this can work well. Maori                profit. This approach is a little too brutal for New Zealand but
There needs to be a self determined incentive to seek better    Commercial enterprises could be empowered and financed to         some of that philosophy can be applied using ACC as a model.
prospects through paid work.                                    help their own whanau with benefits. This could be trialled       The PATHS scheme was a good start in addressing the health
                                                                first to see if it is a working model.                            barrier to employment and seeking to resolve it. It would be
                                                                                                                                  better however, to adequately fund the health system so that
                                                                                                                                  people do not languish on a benefit while suffering needlessly
                                                                                                                                  from a correctable health issue.

Not sure                                                        Don't really know if they can.Again--it is difficult to "force"   Not sure
                                                                people to work.
not sure                                                        Focus less on financial outcomes and more on valuing       Probably not a good idea.
                                                                individuals' uniqueness.

No                                                              We need to get the state sector out of delivery of         Yes: More transparency, use of actuarial risk methods to
                                                                employment services (refer attachement) There need to be   define financial risk, more pragmatism, ie: I am paying a
                                                                more accountability for the service                        person $400 a week to not work (for life) which equals
                                                                                                                           $20,800 a year, I should spend $10,000 as an investment in
                                                                                                                           the unemployed person to get them a job, or skill them to get
                                                                                                                           a job, it has to be cheaper and more effective for the person
                                                                                                                           doesn't it?

I'm impressed by the potential Individualised Funding may
offer people with disabilities.It gives them control and
flexibility over how the money is spent and avoids costly
bureacratic interventions.It is also more focussed on
outcomes-which makes sense Giving people a sum of money
to meet all their needs would result in a much more efficient
use of that money and better outcomes
No. Educational incentives need to be linked to real               Case management that has time to assess and follow through    Compulsory medical and 3rd party vehicle insurance income
outcomes. Work needs to pay more than benefits but both            beneficiaries actual situations and assist and support them   tested with a decreasing subsidy according to increasing
need to maintain an acceptable standard of living. Employer        socially, not financially, through employer incentive         income. Beneficiaries have less disincentive to work, such as
incentives would give people experience of participation and       programmes and possibly educational programmes for the        losing income protection.
could be withdrawn when the beneficiary is settled but             first 6-12 months.
employers need to give good reasons if they terminate
employment and not just keep getting incentives! It also
needs to come from early childhood/other agency input. If
beneficiaries do not participate responsibly in work they
should be stood down for a period of 6-12 months.

Yes the benefits payments are substantially lower than paid                                                                      Yes bad ones from the countries that have done it. Insurance
employment and are not liveable for many people without                                                                          models don't provide full coverage and thus are not useful for
aid from their families. In addition there is significant stigma                                                                 supporting a benefits system. Where they are useful is
attached to them. There are great disincentives to being a                                                                       something like mandatory redundancy payments/kiwisaver
beneficiary currently and it is extremely unlikely any changes                                                                   style contributions during employment to top up those lost
will significant alter this in the direction of being more                                                                       wages on top on the benefits you receive from the
focused on personal responsibility. It also should not be the                                                                    government so people don't risk losing their house etc when
job of the system to promote personal responsibility. The job                                                                    they lose their job and go from 600+ a week to less than 200.
of the benefits system is to ensure we do not have staring
homeless on our streets and any more to increase focus on
personal responsibility cannot conflict with that ultimate
overriding goal. 100% employment is not possible within a
capitalist society and since we certainly do not want to be
any closer to a communist economy we must provide a safety
net for those without jobs. Personal responsibility should not
be a major factor in this equation.
Someone who is on a benefit for an excessively long term is       Childcare subsidies, cheaper transport (maybe vouchers),       Don't understand the question.
by definition not displaying a high degree of personal            financial incentives for employers to employ disabled
responsibility for his or her own financial future, so the very   workers, better promotion of successful employment
fact that you are having to answer this question means the        situations of those with disabilities, graduated reduction of
answer is no, or there would not be so many long-term ones.       benefit for those on a wage (rather than an 'all-or-nothing'
                                                                  approach) until a living wage is achieved, realistic cutoff
                                                                  points for the benefit. and on WINZ visits, more emphasis
                                                                  (where appropriate) on possible jobs, rather than simply
                                                                  renewing the benefit. Also, overturning the recent decision to
                                                                  reduce the scope of the Training Incentives Allowance would
                                                                  encourage more beneficiaries to upskill and therefore be able
                                                                  to apply for skilled positions

no                                                                adequate child care available mentors easy to access         lack of information leads to resistance Lobby groups are
                                                                                                                               often the only voice heard Negative public, fear of loosing
                                                                                                                               long term benefit traction
First of all you have to define personal responsibility! We all                           P
                                                                  Some ideas are to:- •	rovide a realistic level of financial          NO, NO, NO, NO and, oh did I say, ... NOOOO. It is been
have a responsibility to our self, our family, our community      assistance so that individuals and families can live, not just       tried before in NZ and failed dismally. It may work for some
and our country and we all carry out that responsibility in                   P
                                                                  subsist. •	rovide access to affordable, healthy and safe             sectors of society but most found it detrimental to their
different ways, by different means. In direct response to the                  P
                                                                  housing. •	rovide affordable access to healthcare.                   health and rehabilitation and was confusing for employer and
question posed, though, the State should, of course, expect         P
                                                                  •	rovide positive, affordable, and accessible assistance to ALL      employee alike. The cost to the individual and business
people to try their best to not become or remain reliant on its   LEVELS of education so that they can be better equipped to           would, in the long run, cause more financial stress as well.
help BUT it should not force people into anything that will                      P
                                                                  find a job. •	rovide access to programmes that will enhance          Moving away from the ACC model, as it now stands, also
cause further harm. Instead of creating barriers, the State       individual and family life skills, such as assertiveness training,   opens up the road to litigation for compensation. That is one
should be doing all it can to ensure those reliant on its help    positive parenting, basic literacy and numeracy courses,             of the best things about ACC. Even and insurance based
have easy access to affordable help and support to ensure         budgeting, cooking skills, healthy living (holistic view, e.g        model would still need some sort of government guaranteed
they have a REALISTIC pathway to move on with their lives         mind and body) courses, etc ... PLUS provide the cost of             financial backing. Why waste even more taxpayers dollars
and eventually off the welfare system, if that is what is most    transport and childcare to enable beneficiaries to attend            creating even more beaurauracy to prop up a private scheme
appropriate for the individual client.                                               P
                                                                  these courses. •	rovide expert help and advice in job                when there is already a tried, tested and reasonably trusted
                                                                  seeking – not just paying lip-service to it and the people           scheme in place?
                                                                  providing the service should be well trained and
                                                                  knowledgeable about the jobs advertised and being able to
                                                                  match the job seeker with the appropriate job and also have
                                                                  some basic skills in dealing with often very stressed, scared,
                                                                  unassertive and defensive people. Welfare assistance is not
                                                                  just about providing financial help to those in need. It is
Yes.                                                              By understanding that each situation may be different, some          An insurance approach could lead to gross inequity and
                                                                  may require additional time or support in order to achieve           extreme poverty in cases of low income participants.

Yes.                                                              Better training focus and better support (higher payments)           Yes, never use private insurance as it will cost more, be less
                                                                  for the individuals as the present system keeps people alive         efficient and will try not to pay out so as to maintain profits.
                                                                  but divorces them from the community which can, and
                                                                  usually does, cause depression.

More than enough - to the point of bullying.                      Support, don't bully. Enable skills development at tertiary          No.
The failure is with the government and the country to          Training. Apprenticeships. Job creation programs. Stop       Mandatory job loss insurance is one option. Having an
understand that the vast majority of the people on the         treating them so badly.                                      insurance company get to decide when/if you get this
benefit don't want to be there and do want a job. Also that it                                                              insurance is unacceptable. But why would the government
is the economic/education factors that are the solution and                                                                 hand this over to a private organization if there was money o
these are not driven by the individuals. Most people on a                                                                   be made executing this program? That makes absolutely no
benefit don't have a happy existence. I am not sure how a                                                                   non-idealogical sense.
impoverished person on a benefit who cannot find a job even
though they are looking could be held "more responsible"?

Well if community opprobrium and semi starvation is a         They generally can’t, what people really need is not budgeted Yes don’t go there, it is more drain on taxpayers
motivating factor perhaps it does in some peoples view-but    for, it is a macro economic solution-more jobs.
not mine.

No. There should be more services towards healthy eating,     Simplify the benefit structures, create jobs.                 NO. It is unnecessary bureaucracy that will benefit the
stopping smoking, reducing drinking and growing food.                                                                       insurance companies/etc and make life harder for those on
                                                                                                                            the benefit
"Encourage"? Threats aren't encouragement, neither is    Hire some qualified people, not bimbos on $ 15 an hour. We      Yes, all my other insurances spend far more time and energy
harrasment.                                              have a whole industry of recruitment agencys, for which         on trying to worm out of paying then they do on helping me.
                                                         there would be no need at all if WINZ did their job properly.   Insurances, especially those you have in mind, operate for
                                                         Why can't WINZ absorb the kind of activity these firms do       profit, not for people, thus not in people's best interest.
                                                         into it's portfolio? Mind you, having witnessed how some of
                                                         these outfits operate, not least the one you mention in your
                                                         position paper, I don't blame the MED for not wanting to be
                                                         like them.

Wrong question. You assume here that beneficiaries are   Financially funding training and childcare.                     It benefits those who are on the average wage and have
lacking in this quality.                                                                                                 stable employment. Women are disadvantaged since they
                                                                                                                         spend more time out of the workforce due to family
I don't think that the benefit system has much in relation to For sickness and invalids then health care issues need to be   No, Insurance-based welfare is unnecessary bureaucracy that
someone's 'general' Personal responsibility. I mean, personal address. For people who what to be self employed them          always needs backing by the state ultimately anyway. It
responsibility for what? This question is incompletely        budgeting and management services could help them out.         would create an institution that would take a slice of the
formed.                                                                                                                      current pie and hand out what little remained. An insurance
                                                                                                                             base system is just asking for a fail and one that will cost
                                                                                                                             more and deliver less. It's only advantage would be for the
                                                                                                                             government as it would privatise an issues that they don't
                                                                                                                             want to deal with.

Overly.                                                       When the government talks of cutting beauracracies the         Experience will tell you the less insurance you have the
                                                              delvery agencies should be first on the chopping block. The    better. Another form of government lobby leech are the
                                                              owners of these agency are just private sector leeches. They   insurers. Why tie up a public system in more red tape
                                                              suck the life out of public system. What work do they really   beauracracy.
                                                              do? Unless they create jobs I stand corrected however I'm
                                                              sure they are just lobbiests to the nacts.

                                                              yes                                                            NO

Depends on your definition of 'personal responsibility'? I    They can't if the economy isn't providing the actual jobs.     NO.
assume you are thinking in the Randian, Friedman way? Go
get real jobs you fucking parasites.
What sort of a question is this it has nothing to do with     Train them                                                     Yes it is not needed and should never happen.
people who have fallen on difficult times.
                                                              There is a need for training and for supplementary
                                                              allowances for childcare,

Personal responsibility comes from                            By being with them through their voyage into the workforce, There may be but such an insurance type approach needs to
family/whanau/community parenting and example. You            and practically assisting them when difficulties arise,with the be run by the State on a not-for-profit basis but pay as you go
cannot use benefits as a system of teaching personal          intention being to mentor them towards dealing with             or cost neutral
responsibility, but can reward or otherwise examples of       difficulties on their own in time

As far as I can see it does absolutely nothing to encourage   BY making the benefit dependent on the subject making           From what I know of the Canadian system - emphatically YES!
personal responsibility. It is designed to do precisely the   genuine effort.
not in any way                                          make it less attractive to be on a benefit. Promote work   yes
                                                        actively as the expected norm. Stigmatise benefit fraud

Yes because its a struggle every week, hence why most   All Training opportunities, are told at meetings, any      If this is taking a leaf out of America's book I'd have to
people want to work                                     entitlements explained, friendly and undiscrimitive case   disagree. Their system is a complete shambles and poverty
                                                        mangers                                                    and crime is phenomenal. Didn't we get unemployment down
                                                                                                                   to 3%, there's nothing wrong with the system, just needs to
                                                                                                                   be more supportive incentives in place. The reason we have
                                                                                                                   high unemployment is the lack of jobs, not the system itself.
                                                                                                                   Sweden have the right approach with more support systems-
                                                                                                                   which see 85% of solo mums back into work-fantastic!!
No.               See 3 & 7                                                     No.

Definately not.   By finding something that enthuses and work to retraining in Not that I can think of as I dont really understand the
                  that field                                                   question
Definitely not. (And there is a whole industry whose goal is to Get out of the way. Reduce the benefits and leave scope for If it is linked to reduced income taxation.
keep the status quo, because it keeps them employed.)           people to be entrepreneurial. Close down peripheral agencies
                                                                and reduce taxes, so that people keep more of what they
                                                                earn. This makes working more attractive (why else are
                                                                people moving to Australia? They earn more!)
No in a word!                                                 I think on the whole the various departments and their staff     The industry has a set of fairly ridgely followed rules for
                                                              do the best they can given the lack of consequence if the        various forms of cover, clearly spelt out and if you don't meet
                                                              (clients) as they are referred to do not wish to work and this   those criteria then hard luck you do not get paid. Fraudlently
                                                              is really the group that is causing the majority of public       making claims is treated extremely seriously and is also
                                                              concern. There has to be a consequence of meaningful             treated in the same manner by the courts. Why then do we
                                                              proportion to make sure agencies support is treated seriously    not apply the same standards to welfare benefits, like the
                                                              by the recipients.                                               insurance industry it might be initially hard to take and
                                                                                                                               probably not universall liked but it would soon become
                                                                                                                               abvious to those who cheat the sytem that they need to
                                                                                                                               abide by the strict and clearly spelt out conditions or accept
                                                                                                                               personal responsibility for their own welfare.

The concept of personal responiblity is a concept that some   Careful assessment of the failings a person has experieced in No this is another right wing copout and its this that since the
people have no understanding of. My fear is that this is a    the education and preparation for the working world. Most 1980's that has led to the burgeoning underclass that are
euphemism for lazy people who don't want to work. It can      people on long term benefits have missed the boat and are     now generational beneficiaries.
therefore be misused by some who have a very negative bent    poorly educated and skilled to aquire work.
toward any person on a benefit.

No otherwise people would not choose to be on a benefit.      Detailed support and planning on an individual level. This       Not sure. This is just about funding really so it doesn't
                                                              could either be seen as positive assistance to getting into      actually deal with the problem. Lets face it in the end no
                                                              work or driving people to work. Don't care how it is             civilised society ever says to someone 'starve as you have run
                                                              percieved as in the long run almost nobody is better off on a    out of allocated benefit time'.
                                                              benefit when considered holistically from a personal or a
                                                              societal perspective.
No                Since the ETS has made trees valuable, government-paid tree    A privately operated insurance-based approach would
                  planting could become the activity for the unemployed who      certainly get people back into work quicker, as did the
                  cannot find work. Vast tracts of non-conservation Crown land   privately operated accident insurance schemes that used to
                  could thus be planted in a whole host of species, including    be more effective and cheaper than ACC. However, an
                  natives. Then there is road-building, mining, and so on.       unemployment insurance schemeI have to have the
                                                                                 individual payer's name on it. I would object to an extra
                                                                                 separate welfare insurance that is disbursed to current
                                                                                 welfare recipients because I would be paying twice for other
                                                                                 peoples welfare.

Absolutely not.   More use of volunteer positions to build confidence, skills,   Works well in Singapore but in New Zealand we have a
                  and experience.                                                culture that does not support it. People are not used to
                                                                                 having to organise and support the needs of themselves and
                                                                                 their families - ACC, free education, free healthcare, and the
                                                                                 benefit system means people are not required to insure
                                                                                 themselves against misfortune or take steps to lessen the
                                                                                 impact. Would be useful if not able to collect a benefit unless
                                                                                 have been productive taxpayer.

NO                compulsory training on job application skills, compulsory  no
                  community/state work experience (benefits paid in exchange
                  for work)
It’s hard to say – front line workers in WINZ are often very         Build more rapport with clients                                I don't have enough knowledge on this approach however
rude and judgemental in regards to their clients and tend to                                                                        there may be a risk on there simply not being enough
take a persecutory perspective rather than perhaps an                                                                               financial imput into the welfare system to sustain it.
educational one. You can’t force people to take
responsibility, an empowering approach would encourage
beneficiaries to step up to the plate more.

What? There's a strong moral judgement behind some of                have people who know what it's like to live/ survive from day no don't go there
these questions.       It ain't fun living off a benefit and can't   to day hand to mouth delivering front line services. Engage
be called a lifestyle. It's about surviving. People on benefits      people if they want in strengthening lives planning where
have to front up to patronising people in multiple agerncies         people find out their options, draw on their strengths and get
to state their case showing a lot of responsibility how              on with moving towards a more positive future.
about we look at community responsibility to actively end
discrimination and promote social and economic inclusion of
disenfranchised people.

No                                                                   People eventually have to learn to stand on their own two      Don't know - brokers would probably be the only winners.
                                                                     feet but in the current system, they are enabled to continue   ACC proves this by showing genuine cases being refused
                                                                     to live without responsiblity if they so chose. A more tough   while dishonest people work the system to their advantage
                                                                     love approach in extreme cases.                                and retain unfair payments much like some beneficiaries do
•	 attempts to but does not go far enough and the                 C
                                                                 •	onsistent follow through and co-ordination from W & I         P
                                                                                                                                •	ortion of tax designated for welfare as we have for ACC - an
Government needs to work towards reframing the public            when they set up programmes with beneficiaries in the          insurance for any future inability to earn and comprehensive
attitude towards welfare •	hallenge people who respond           community, otherwise the community is left to run courses                                     C
                                                                                                                                publicity campaign about it •	ompulsory contribution to
publicly to changes in policy with little working knowledge of                                                W
                                                                 and they do not always have the resources •	 & I Integrated    welfare insurance deducted like PAYE
what goes on in the community •	 cknowledge that some            Services Team getting good results as they follow through
people chose to be beneficiaries •	ompulsory training or         with clients
work schemes for people on an unemployment benefit to
experience the value of work and teach work habits so
children are raised in an environment not dependant on
benefits •	 o appearance at course or work scheme then no
benefit just as in the workforce

People would sooner waste the Govt's time than their in          By providing people with tools to help themselves like online Is this a trick question? Are you asking whether a Govt based
pursuit of a job they don't want.Support people to find jobs     talent profiles & talent matching.                            insurance scheme has potential to help because I would
that leverage their strengths and you will empower them to                                                                     suggest there are several billion reasons not to pursue the
become self reliant and responsible for their own success                                                                      ACC model. Again, its the focus on money that is wrong here.
rather than relinquishing this responsibility to Govt.                                                                         People are assets | Work should be about life, it should be
                                                                                                                               about matching people with work that empowers them.
                                                                                                                               Work that matches their talents, skills, strengths and passion.
                                                                                                                               Initially this might require matching people with volunteer
                                                                                                                               work experience.
No.Zero accountability equals a free lunch.                     Employ more experienced and focussed case managers and           Definitely. The British standard of the more you pay for social
                                                                less people just looking for an easy meal ticket.                security the more you receive when needed to maintain your
                                                                                                                                 standard of living.

No. That is why I would have every beneficiary sign a contract Assess them , get to know them , build a relationship with        I like the way ACC work with injured people to find them new
which can set out obligations and consequences . It would be them and understand them. This is very complex and it is not        skill sets , explore new job options and have a contact (
run like having a job. Employees dont complain about not       a " one size fits all' solution.                                  return to work programme) that they both sign and work
getting paid fr not turning up to work but I hear complaints                                                                     towards.
from beneficiaries about having their benefit cut off for not
keeping up with their obligations.

No. Otherwise we wouldn't see cluster state house               Taking genuine barriers in people's situations into account.     It won't work, because the "no hoper" class of beneficiary will
households where nobody works partying every week               Creation of either paid jobs or subsidised training positions    never be in a position to buy in (they haven't even been
sometimes on multiple occasions, unemployed guys driving        with a guaranteed lead in to a job. Tying any training into      successfully managed into basic work readiness), while the
around in high performance cars, walking around the streets     local job market requirements, so that beneficiaries aren't      honest, decent class are already struggling to survive against
visiting like minded mates during work time, single women       just undertaking training that leads nowhere in the long term.   a climate of rising costs.
having extra children to increase their income and alcoholics   Exercising flexibility and being prepared to look outside the
and drug addicts continuing to maintain habits sometimes for    square.
years. By contrast the honest, decent class of beneficiary is
usually the first targetted when policy changes are made,
presumably because they are softer targets than the above
group who will make life more difficult for WINZ staff either
through one on one confrontation or more frequently
nowadays lawsuits or "victim oriented" media campaigns.
I am responsible for my own destiny, the government does   The better question here is how can the government create    Yes, lets no go there. I note that we seem to be heading more
nothing to help that, they actually hinder me.             long term well paid employment and ensure that people are    and more towards a US style system where people are barely
                                                           doing what they want to do, instead of something they have   able to afford to live, and borrow heavily (but hell lets use a
                                                           to.                                                          US style system its what got us into this mess in the first place-
                                                                                                                        credit crunch anyone?). Take the example of wall mart who
                                                                                                                        pays its staff in the US so little they actually provide their
                                                                                                                        employees with benefit application forms just so their staff
                                                                                                                        can survive. Any Insurance company deals with individuals
                                                                                                                        like commodities, look at ACC here, getting people off ACC
                                                                                                                        and onto WINZ, just so it can clear its books, they will use any
                                                                                                                        means necessary. Homelessness and poverty are rampant in
                                                                                                                        the US, do we want that here? They have the same insurance
                                                                                                                        system we are trying to emulate. It will do no good for
                                                                                                                        anyone, and any government that tries to introduce it will
                                                                                                                        loose power in a heartbeat.

yes.                                                       By stopping blaming the benefit for creating unemployment- No- insurance is the same as the current system- in that those
                                                           and addressing the real causes of poverty and              who don't need to use it will pay for those who do. It's a
                                                           unemployment.                                              semantic and ideological issue. Why should private insuers
                                                                                                                      profit from people's hardship?
I would debate how much difference it would make to this              We need a new agency who's sole role is in supporting              Not many. Most of the people on benefits could not afford
group of people if we required greater "personal                      people into work. If this is combined with benefit provision       the premiums. We would always have to define the
responsibility" If you live in poverty it is pretty hard to get out   there is an inevitable lack of trust and limit to how much         "uninsurable" and if you introduce an insurance approach for
of it, and by definition those who have the resilience to see it      information is shared. The skills of a benefit administrator are   those above the "uninsurable" threshhold you would
as their personal responsibility are unlikely to be there.            significantly different from those of a case manager. We have      introduce another set of perverse incentives for those on the
                                                                      a good model of the " Case manager" role in ACC. An                margins
                                                                      argument could be made of subtracting ACC to provide
                                                                      "barriers to work" assessment and rehab planning.

NO!                                                                   Don't know - maybe continuity of one case worker to the            Don't know.
                                                                      same person to encourage a relationship.
                                                                                                                                I am concerned this if was going to private sector as need to
                                                                                                                                be secured fund to avoid fraud, corruption and abuse the
                                                                                                                                system. Need to be monitor the secured fund of insurance
                                                                                                                                need greater protection and security while in private sector.
                                                                                                                                I am unsure employer would able to pay to sickness and
                                                                                                                                disability peoples would be effective as i believe there should
                                                                                                                                be working party to workout how this would fund the
                                                                                                                                insurance system in private sector.

The answer here is "yes" and "no". "Yes" it does enough to       By assisting the unemployed or where appropriate, their care   If sufferers of chronic mental illnesses such as Schizophrenia
encourage personal responsibility in that clearly nothing        givers with training programmes, self employment or other      and their family care givers are denied the finance required
more can be done to encourage more responsibility for many       options as an alternative to narrowly focussing on             to maintain their health care program, or to fend for
who are by definition incapable of managing their own health     employment which may not be either sustainable or relevant     themselves, not only is the Government and each Agency
care (such as the chronically mentally ill) other than work      to their family circumstances.                                 Employee involved indirectly and individually committing a
more closely with care givers, family GP's or professionals in                                                                  crime under section 145 of the Crimes Act (failure to render
assisting their ongoing care. I say this because                                                                                medical assistance or at worst obstruction), but the
schizophrenia, is by definition can never sustainably be                                                                        community at large will become increasingly in danger of
autonomously managed.                                                                                                           suffering the horrific massacres we have seen in the past.
This is a loaded question. People with long term health issues    Treat them with respect, be encouraging and supportive.        Only to a degree and of course don't forget the insurance
can only do so much. People who do not have the social skills     Make funding a bit more creative and flexible, able to be      industry penalises those with health issues. If you are a
to maintain employment need a different approach-                 tailored to the individual. Provide some scaffolding to        smoker and your illness/disabillity has nothing to do with that
psychological evaluation +/- cognitive behaviour                  support those with long term health conditions make and        (autoimmune diseases/lost a leg in an accident) how would
therapy.(why are there people in NZ on long term benefits         sustain the transition into work. Make the Treaty settlement   that work?
that are deemed too aggressive to deal with???) Ever              monies be used to help Iwi members in these circumstances.
growing numbers of children being supported by the state?
Not very responsible, but it is not the children's fault. You
also need to provide training etc to help people take control
of their lives-maybe vocation/employment linked.

Yes - but I come back to the crimnal record system again in       They must work closely with communities, visit individuals No. ACC is seen by many as a supplementary to Social
that it is a major stumbling block for people in gaining          and families on long term unemployment in their home       Welfare income/dependency.
employment. In effect this system commits them to long            environment, more of hands on approach in the community,
term social welfare dependency and on top of this they            not from a government office located somewhere on the
cannot leave the county. If this system continues in allowing     High Street.
employers access to all police/crimnal records, then the
majority people left in NZ will be those with a crimnal records
who cannot get a job or leave the country. Not a good image
of NZ.
Do you agree that the current benefit system is socially and   Are there important issues that are in the Terms of Reference Are you          If you answered yes,     Are you in paid work?
economically unsustainable?                                    for the Welfare Working Group that you think we have not      making this      what
                                                               covered in this paper?                                        submission on    organisation/business do
                                                                                                                             behalf of an     you represent?
                                                                                                                             or a business?

Open-Ended Response                                           Open-Ended Response                                           Response          Open-Ended Response      Response
It's been sustained for a long time now and is much less used I haven't yet read the paper!!                                No                                         Yes
and abused than it was in the 1980s. I think it probably
contributes ot the economy, by keeping the unemployable
out of the workforce.

Not at all.                                                    I don't know?                                                No                                         No

probably, but can certainly do with refinement.                                                                             No                                         Yes
No. Some people are paid way more than they are worth,           The terms of reference for the Welfare Working Group were No                                    Yes
and taxed to little. A good benefit system encourages an         too limited, and presupposed the outcomes, as do the biased
attitude of a caring society where we are alll in this together. nature of these questions.

Yes it is. It's getting worse, NZ cannot afford it in the future   The Welfare Working Group should look at the flipside of         Yes   For the Sake of Our     Yes
longterm. If younger people are more likely to be on the           providing benefits for positive behaviour and lifestyle living -       Children Trust
benefit, NZ's population is getting younger - with young           eg., married policy (or co-parenting policy) to encourage              rachel@forourchildren.o
mothers having children. The pacific population is growing -       postitive parenting and for the next generation to see       
via birth rates in NZ and this population tends to congregate      positive role-modeling. eg., examine the need to invest
in specifc areas therefore they should be easier targeted and      more in 'working parents/mothers' who wish to look after
work with to get more people of the benefits.                      their children and then go back to work. Work more
                                                                   specifically with youth, maori and pacific groups to examine
                                                                   behaviour to better outcomes for these groups in the next
Of course it is unsustainable, because we are dealing with a    I think employment structures of recent times is much more No                                 No
lot of loss of human potential that never gets realized. Too    complex than they were in the 1950s - 1970's. The back then
much me first and personal greed not wanting to share and       a school leavers simply use to find a job down the road and
take turns within the traditional job market frame. And not     then leave school. Whereas the teens of now avoid transition
enough vision, support to create new vision and industrial      of leaving school knowing that the pickings are lean and so
invention to create more or other jobs. I come from a family    stay on at school for various merit - whether some simply
full of top notch accountants this is simply booking keeping    enjoy the school social life to only postpone the envitable
and bennie bashing nothing new. I think it is better to focus   drudgery of a low income, aggressive competition with the
on creating jobs and innovation to enable people to get off     older and establish cohorts that have created very little 'new
benefits.                                                       employment invention' in last 20 years. How may kiwi
                                                                manufactures produce off shore - O.K sometimes the
                                                                rationale makes hell of a lot of sense, but I'm still suspicious
                                                                that too much is based on head office profit. And is this
                                                                responsible and sustainable for our children's future? My
                                                                hope is the future we will see the growth of cottage
                                                                industries (offering complex to simple services/products)
                                                                which will grow within the community and that are based on
                                                                more sustainable capitalism. So maybe we are destined to
                                                                'wombles' after all. Structural imbalance and additional
                                                                complexities of those often older two income families have
                                                                defaulted further poverty onto the unemployed, low income
Yes - it has been in need of reform for decades and has         No. If I can be of any assistance to the group I would be        Yes   The New Zealand Centre Yes
expanded to the point where it destroys lives and               happy to oblige. Dr Muriel Newman New Zealand Centre                   for Political Research
opportunity as well as being an unsustainable burden on         for Political Research
No I don't necessarily believe it is unsustainable, if, as a        T                                                 G
                                                                  •	he functional realities of the Labour Market •	 reater        No   No
society, we value economic security for those that need it,       acknowledgement to the fact that welfare-to-work
there are always ways to pay the costs. Do we need to             programmes will not be suitable for many benefit recipients
address sustainability? Yes, but we do this through the             T
                                                                  •	he role of education and training to improve the long-term
effectiveness (are we achieving the right outcomes) and                                             F
                                                                  prospects of benefit recipients •	ailure to take an integrative
efficiency (are we doing so in an economic manner) of the         approach to dealing with the issues surrounding the benefit
solutions we develop to deal with the core issues, which are:     system Each of these issues is examined below. The
(1)Pay a living wage to benefit recipients (2) Providing real     functional realities of the Labour Market The fundamental
incentives for work, without leaving benefit levels below a       issue ignored by the WWG report, and welfare-to-work
living wage (3) Acknowledging the social and economic             policies in general, is one that most politicians and contented
value of unpaid work such as childcare and caring for the         citizens fail to publicly acknowledge: all work is not equally
elderly or sick (4) Making full employment a key                  enjoyable or well paid. In a market economy, the labour
government policy (5)Acknowledging the realities of the           market, by necessity, will be deeply stratified: there will
labour market: that there are always winners and losers, and      always be winners and losers, both in terms of the types of
not all jobs are good jobs                                        jobs done and the wages received. This is discussed in detail
                                                                  below, based in a large part on the writings of the renowned
                                                                  20th century Canadian-American economist John Kenneth
                                                                  Galbraith, in his book, The Culture of Contentment (pp.30-
                                                                  41). The underclass (i.e., those working, but earning low
                                                                  incomes), Galbraith explains, “is deeply functional; all
                                                                  industrial countries have one in greater or lesser measure
I definitely agree that is why I feel the original purpose should                                                                 No
be reinstated.
Yes. I think we need a major rethink and to once again have I have attended a consultation session and wanted to make a No           Yes
NZ lead the world in designing a system taht works for all.     full submission but have not had the time to do so. would
The welfare system is based on a charitable model that has      love to continue a real dialogue
proven limitations. The systems such as the insurance system
disadvantages the most disadvantaged. It will make us
considerably worse off. Having nothing is not respectful of all
human beings. I would like to see a major dialogue started
on rethinking how we all share the responsibility for sharing
out our resources. It may be that universal income is a much
better system than any currently used. Collectivist societies,
including Maori, Pacific, some Asian societies, refugees and
many others that are fast moving towards making up the
majority of NZ society prefer systems that allow them to care
for all those in their community. Let's do a major rethink.

Yes I believe that the current system is economically               Yes – see below [A16a] There are inadequate disincentives No     Yes
unsustainable and is partly to blame for New Zealand                for increasing welfare dependency. The DPB and some other
dropping from having the fourth highest per capita income in        benefits increase as the number of dependant children
the OECD in the 1950s to having the third lowest today. The         increases. Although that may seem to be reasonable for the
money that we have spent on welfare has reduced the                 management of larger families, it creates a situation in which
money that could have been spent on economic                        the beneficiaries themselves can decide to commit the
development. There are some inequitable aspects to welfare          taxpayer to increasing levels of support. I accept that there
payments. When times are hard, welfare payments keep up             are no easy solutions to this problem, but there needs to be
with inflation whilst wages lose way against inflation. Thus        ways that require beneficiaries to avoid adding to the
the taxpayers face increasing hardship whilst welfare               taxpayers’ burdens. [A16b] Mis-use of Sickness benefits
recipients are cushioned from economic hardship.                    appears to have official sanction. After 45 years of a Public
Governments have been exhorting the entire Country to               Health System we have a higher proportion of the population
“greater efficiency”, which has often resulted in worker being      on long term sickness benefits than ever before. If one
required to increase output faster than wages, or to produce        applied a bizarre logic, one would propose doing away with
similar outputs with less staff. On a national basis, greater       the Public Health System. When I was in the UK some years
efficiency could be achieved by having a higher proportion of       ago, there was a mini-scandal about the government
the potential workforce in paid employment, but there seems         encouraging Doctors to put the long-term unemployed onto
to be little political will to require beneficiaries to work. The   sickness benefits, and thereby hide the true size of the
current situation is also socially unsustainable with a growing     unemployment problem. It would appear that a similar
division between the taxpayers and the beneficiaries. It is         process may be happening here in NZ. One of the few aspects
possible that the perception of having to support a large           that dismays me about a public welfare system is that
No                                                                                                                                Yes   YouthLaw Tino    Yes

Others have raised concerns to the WWG about the figures         I do not believe that there is, or has been, a successful society No                    Yes
used in the paper to demonstrate that the current system is      which has not provided welfare to people who are unable to
unsustainable. I support those concerns. The amount stated       provide for themselves. The notion that it is welfare provision
was $50 billion but there has been no breakdown in the           that causes a need for welfare has been a matter for debate
issues paper in regards to where this figure comes from and      for centuries and must be seen for what it is: a disinterest on
also no means of establihing its relative size and impact. In    the part of some sections of society to accommodate the
my view it is a meaningless figure which has been used to        needs of other sections, illustrating in that way a refusal to
create a sense of crisis. Everything sounds terribly expensive   recognize that society is an organism and that the health of
when adding up all the future costs. The future payments of      all sectors is required in order to maintain the health of the
benefits do not have to be funded now - they will be paid out    whole. It is evident from a cursory Google search that there
over decades with revenue raised at the time.                    has been a debate around communal responsibility for those
                                                                 unable to fend successfully for themselves, since early times.
                                                                 In medieval England, the monasteries accepted responsibility
                                                                 for the destitute and the infirm, but once the monastic
                                                                 empires were torn down by the Tudors, destitution became a
                                                                 pre-occupation at all levels of society, and laws were enacted
                                                                 to deal with the problem. Often, as is also sometimes the
                                                                 case today, blame for destitution was laid at the feet of those
                                                                 who were destitute thereby obviating any attempt to rectify
                                                                 the social structures that lead to the disproportionate
                                                                 distribution of wealth. In 1495 the English parliament under
                                                              The key issues for our organisation is that the welfare of       Yes   Action for Children and   No
                                                              children is critical to the social fabric of New Zealand. We           Youth Aotearoa Inc
                                                              have just issued a report to the UN Committee on the Rights            (ACYA)
                                                              of the Child entitled "Children and Youth in Aotearoa
                                                              2010"(CYA 2010) with supporting working papers that also
                                                              address issues raised by this topic. These are available on our
                                                              website: www.acya, We draw your attention in CYA
                                                              2010 to paragraphs 6.32- 6.52 (welfare),1.26-1.28 (budgetary
                                                              allocations), 1.29-1.34 (data collection), and the
                                                              Recommendations 3, 4,5, 13, and in particular 27 that
                                                              addresses adequate standard of living. We have read and
                                                              endorse the excellent submission by Child Poverty Action
                                                              Group. Their publication "Left behind" and the report by the
                                                              Commissioner for Children " a fair go for all children" are also
                                                              useful research papers protecting the wellbeing of children
                                                              whose parents receive benefits.

Yes. But the answer lies in the wider society of more jobs and As pointed out, benefits cannot be discussed in isolation, and No                               No
more adequate remuneration for them.                           the rapid increas in disparity between very rich and poor in
                                                               NZ over the last few decades has contributed to many of the
                                                               problems listed. Unless this is addressed, we will all suffer.

                                                                                                                              No                               Yes
No. (1)Welfare is not socially unsustainable, poverty is.        Yes. (1)The Welfare Group needs to consider carefully the     Yes   Mt Albert Psychological   Yes
(2)Low benefit levels, and official policies designed to         obligations of States under International Covenants relating        Services Ltd
increase the income difference between those in work and         to civil and political rights and rights associated with
those on benefits have been a major contributor to New           discrimination. (2)The group needs to be familiar with the
Zealand’s social and income inequality, and it is this that is   NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990. The group should consult with the
socially unsustainable. (3)Making welfare more difficult to      Human Rights Commission particularly with respect to equity
get, time limiting benefits, and making payments even            and discrimination obligations. (3)The Group needs to
meaner will not enhance New Zealand’s social cohesion and        consider the long-term negative impact on wellbeing, and
long-term sustainability, it will make it worse.                 social and physical development of the children of New
                                                                 Zealand of an increasingly limited and punitive regime of
                                                                 social assistance.

What is unsustainable is the low level of benefits and the       Sadly the terms of reference are so limited that this is                                      Yes
punitive approach to welfare. What is unsustainable is to        reflected in this survey- the most important issue is to ask
ignore the scientific and intuitive knowledge we have as to      ourselves "what sort of society do we want"? and "how can
the needs of children. Social and health costs in later years    we put children at the centre of our welfare system?
can be avoided by commitment to the needs of the early
years. What is unsustainable is our belief humans only
flourish at "work" - we cannot continue to ignore the
importance of "care" at all levels of human development.
What is unsustainable is the levels of poverty which exist
among our beneficiaries.
- No, I definitely don't. The rights of all citizens to look to the   - No, I think the paper evidences careful thought and        No   Yes
state in time of need cannot be compromised. Later                    reflection backed up by research. Some of the omissions from
generatons will modify it's structure to serve their needs. The       the terms of reference though seem to me to need to be
fact that NZ economy is stretched at the moment isn't new,            looked at along side it.
that we live beyond our means isn't either. What is new
seems to be the that the spotlight is being turned on the
most vulnerable in society in order to help sort out the
excesses of the more able.

Yes but that is because there are so many people being put Would need to come back to you on this I would like                    No    No
on drugs that have adverse effects and side effects ( statins someone to get back to me about the statement * above.
cause muscle pain, Voltaren strokes). Normal to have
physical pain sometimes, fear sometimes, be extremely
fatigued and/or depressed sometimes whilst recovering from
the factors that have caused these problems. Health orgs and
society tend not to support people who are going through a
bad patch, and allow them to be locked longterm into a
negative way of living.N B mental health patients are given
far too high a dose of neurolepic drugs. Psychiatrists make
sure that their patients are medicated into submission and
zombiness - this must stop - also it does not combine at all
with being able to get a job. Some of the typical anti-
psychotic drugs are causing diabetes eg 6 at Buchanan Clinic
in Pt Chev just in 1/2010*.
                                                                                                                                     Yes    VicLabour: a branch of
                                                                                                                                            Young Labour in the New
                                                                                                                                            Zealand Labour Party.

I believe that the benefit system is socially essential, and am       The effect of the Section 60H 13 week stand down as a           Yes   Wellington People's       Yes
fascinated by people who come to NZ for the safety and                disincentive for leaving bad workplaces resulting in stress and       Centre benefit Rights
security and then question the wisdom of the benefit system.          people coming out of work and onto a Sickness benefit,                Service
It is essential that a socially fair society ensures that resources   rather than leaving work in an employable state. The
are allocated so that everyone has access to the basic                interaction of this with the 90 day trial will act as a
necessities of life. The current economic structure is                disincentive for work for those who lack confidence. The role
unsustainable and perhaps all of the systems within it mirror         that W&I must take in ensuring that people are placed in
this. We can not afford not to keep paying benefits as the            suitable sustainable employment with good employers, which
costs to the justice and health systems will be greater than          needs to be coupled with a responsibility not to place
the savings in benefits.                                              candidates with employers known to have poor employment
                                                                      practices. ThHe thresholds of the accommodation
                                                                      supplement which encourages beneficiaries to rent rather
                                                                      than buy thier own home, and the impact this has on their
                                                                      long term financial security. The review and appeal process
                                                                      used by W&I which discourages beneficiaries from
                                                                      questioning decisions made about their entitlement and thus
                                                                      creates a barrier to understanding entitlement and to
                                                                      empowerment and personal responsibility
No; I think that we in many cases we should see the money           Yes, I do not believe you can improve the benefit system    No    Yes
spent on the benefit system as an investment in people who          without considering the complex interplay between welfare,
are in need due to the vagries of the modern world and to           employment/economic policy and family/child policy. The
ensuring they are not left destitute or forced to find other        following issues need to be considered: 1. Benefit adequacy
forms of earning a living (such as crime or prostitution). I also   2. Our rights as New Zealand citizens to live without need
see the benefit system as an investment in children who,            and poverty and to decent work and conditions 4. The role
through no fault of their own, have parents who are unable          of New Zealand Superannuation in the benefit mix and issues
(and in some few cases, are unwilling) to fully participate in      of sustainability 5. The role of supplementary assistance
the labour market. If we invested more heavily (but also            such as Working for Families 6. The role of broader policy
more strategically) in a social security system, this could         regarding families and children, including that relating to
indeed save us money spent on prisons, on victims of crime,         childcare and all levels of education
on ill-health etc. This investment is all the more necessary
given that with an ageing population and with Maori and
Pasifika peoples disproportionately representing the younger
generation, we will have a smaller tax base for supporting the
benefit system (including New Zealand superannuation).
Money spent thoughtfully now on job creation, decent
childcare and education and in changing employer attitudes
will thus ensure today's young people are able to support the
older generation in the future.

These are abstract concepts based on projections. We all            To consult with beneficaries themslves about what they need No    Yes
know that recessions come and go, the current recession is          The need to look at how beneficiaries already contribute to
not resolved as yet . This is reflected in the loss of jobs,        the economy eg. Voluntary work is heavily promoted as an
houses hard to sell, childcare funding cuts,and people              option for beneficiaries . As such there are many beneficiaries
generally unwilling to make consumer decisions. In tandem           engaged in this work. The statement about employment
with this the increase in GST will impact further we are seeing     figures for the unemployment benefit being better is flawed
transport and rates already . Reducing the number of long           for the reason that a person is not eligible for an
term beneficiaries by employment is too simple an answer.           unemployment benefit if they have a spouse or partner
Employment is not a panacea . Much of the work available            working. So a whole range of people are not taken into
to beneficiaries is unskilled, and not necessarily suited to        account. WINZ does not embrace the aim 1.4...enable the
them, it is often low paid they are further being penalized for     provision of other support. WINZ does not have the
lack of opportunities. They are looked upon as liabilities in       expertise in the area of employment and fails in its ability to
an economic model , discovery how they could be assets has          deliver in this area.
not been considered. Beneficiaries create employment for
many in organisations such as WINZ and other delivery
agencies. Much voluntary work is carried out by beneficiaries.
Long term beneficiary dependency may have its place. Sole
parents and grandparents carry huge responsibilties for the
welfare of children often in difficult situations, some of
these children have disabilties and needs . The closest benefit
No, especially if we succeed in eliminating the ways it is    Yes see ( Google it) Information about "The East Asian         No    No
being attacked.                                               Welfare Model" or " The productivist and Development
                                                              Model" (of welfare). This shows the method by which the
                                                              current social model is considered a "transitional" process to
                                                              the "insurance model" The concern is that the referred
                                                              transition is one from an inlcusive to a exclusive welfare
                                                              model in which the language concerning that of insurance
                                                              industry clamimants is referred to as "wefare" provision. (see
                                                              answer to qu 14).

No, there is just no accountability or incentive to get off it. I New ideas should be phased in for those already on benefits No   No
see an opportunity to encourage through Employers being            and NO Exceptions for new benefits.
able to get Relievers in to do an ill persons job, so that the ill
person has a job to go back to or resign from if necessary and
the reliever gets work experience, the reliever would come
from the Commumity Center as noted in Number 13. imilar
to School teaching and relieving system.
                                                                                                                 No                            Yes

                                                         We are concerned about the lack of co-ordination between Yes   Complex Carers Group   Yes
                                                         Work and Income, Housing NZ and MoH Disability services
                                                         with regard to accommodation and rents for severly impaired

No I don't. In New Zealand we now have people with        Don't know                                             No                            Yes
unimaginable amounts of wealth who have just recently had
a tax cut. While our emphasis is on protecting those who
already have, we cannot argue that the benefit system in
economically unsustainable.
Yes, probably. It does not focus on the qualilty of the future   I have covered some of these above. Useful references are:   No   No
work force. See above. Result: economic unsustainability.        Social Investment Society: Welfare Reform in NZ, Prof Paul
By supporting the large gap in wealth between the richest        Dalziel, Economics, Lincoln University. Swedish approach:
and the poorest it will become socially unsustainable.           Work of the Swedish Institute for Futures Studies, Director,
                                                                 Joakim Palme, Visited NZ in 2007
                                                                 Much quantitative data. Early Intervention: Ending
                                                                 Intergenerational Dysfunction in NZ Families: The Importance
                                                                 of Early Intervention
                                                                 news.html Study report of branch of NZ Federation of
                                                                 Graduate Women, July 2009. Links early intervention to
                                                                 significant negative social and economic outcomes with
                                                                 attempt to provide estimate of cost. Also much other
                                                                 evidence about this both from overseas and NZ. This is too
                                                                 important a subject for the Welfare Group to ignore the
                                                                 range of research available. There is a difference between
                                                                 evidence based policy and policy based evidence.

Don't know.                                                      Don't know about this. I would like to see these terms of   No    No
                                                                 reference so I can comment on them.
No                                                                                                                          No    Yes

All benefit systems need to be tweaked from time to time. If   Most of the important issues in this area are not captured by No   Yes
the right tweaks are made to the NZ system (e.g., a well-      the Terms of Reference.
signalled and long-term sequence of changes to the age of
eligibility for National Superannuation) then there is no
reason to believe the system cannot be sustained.

NO                                                             Pensions are not covered Individual entitlement. Minimum     No    Yes
                                                               wages livable incomes.

Yes to socially No to economically.                            Child poverty.                                               No    Yes
Yes - the evidence for this is quite clear from the Summary   Yes. There needs to be better communication between ACC No             Yes
Paper.                                                        and DSW. In the course of employment with both ACC and
                                                              another health agency I discovered that some determined
                                                              beneficiaries were going off ACC's books and then getting a
                                                              SB. This was after they had been through a comprehensive
                                                              rehabilitation program and deemed ready for work. Their
                                                              own GP is kept informed of this process. In all of the cases I
                                                              became aware of the same GP signed the SB form which I
                                                              regard as bordering on fraudulent. I am unsure of how
                                                              common this issue occurs because it was difficult to get
                                                              information because of privacy issues. The issue of career
                                                              criminals getting SB needs to be addressed. If a person is well
                                                              enough to commit crimes then they are fit to work.

YES!!!                                                        This is prorbably not the correct section to comment under,       No   No
                                                              but I find that NZ Super is one area in particular that is
                                                              getting out of hand.I know that those that may/could be
                                                              effected would say"we have paid our taxes and we deserve
                                                              it" but the reality is that the country is getting to the stage
                                                              when it will be unaffordable.There are so many people that
                                                              are multi millionares and are still working, or those getting
                                                              work funded super, who in reality don't really need it

                                                                                                                                No   Yes
not sure, there seems to be plenty of money for other                The situation of full time caregivers of disabled people needs No   No
things...                                                            urgent attention...

                                                                                                                                   No    Yes

yes                                                                  More emphasis on the Labour market (employer) potential as No       Yes
                                                                     a solution, ie the demand side of this economic equation.

For people with Disabilities I don't agree that the current                                                                        No    Yes
system is unsustainable.In fact the current funding is
inadequate in a number of areas.If you ask peole about
supporting people with disabilities they would be in favour
yet spending in this area has fallen significantly in real terms
becuase the sector is weak and ineffective in advocating for
the cause.Also it is not a significant political vote winner so it
is low priority for Governments
Yes.                                                              The importance of drug and alcohol issues.   No   Yes

No. The benefits system overall provides net societal and                                                      No   No
economic gains. While it does cost a lot of money each year it
provides economic and social stability which is incredibly
important to the fabric of our society. I would like to further
comment this question is biased towards yes answers and will
likely thus not be reliable for quantitative data so I suggest
you look at it only qualitatively and the arguments contained.
Economically so, definitely. Socially, less sure as don't fully   Workbridge. I have used them (or attempted to) three times No       Yes
understand the question.                                          now, over a period of about ten years (the last time being
                                                                  about 8 years ago), and my impression of them is they are
                                                                  great at finding "sheltered workshop-type" jobs for disabled
                                                                  people. An attempt at finding appropriate employment for
                                                                  those capable would be preferable, and would go some way
                                                                  to reducing long-term Invalid's Beneficiary dependence.

yes                                                               Double dipping for a start Stricter reinforcement of benefit   No   No
No, I do not agree with that proposition - I believe that the   Get tougher with identified benefit fraudsters. Make the     No   No
benefit system is sustainable and economically viable and       penalties harsher and ensure that the public knows that this
fulfills a very valuable social need within our society and     is happening. Higher level study should be accessible,
MUST remain.                                                    afforable and a priority. Tell the Minister to stop allowing
                                                                'bene bashing' to continue through her words and deeds. She
                                                                should be setting a good example as to how our society
                                                                should value and help and support those less fortunate and
                                                                on a benefit. She needs to learn to lead by example and her
                                                                examples, up to now, are hurting those she is supposed to be

No.                                                             Unsure.

No.                                                                                                                         No    No

No. Fund it through tax.                                                                                                    No    Yes
I think that our constant cutting of taxes regardless of        The mandate of the entire group is unacceptable. The            No    Yes
economic conditions and our lack of focus on job creation       government has told the group to restrict itself to a small set
and increasing exports while decreasing foreign held debt is    of solutions and this is simply unacceptable. It automatically
economically unsustainable. These are the solutions.            cuts off many of the solutions that might actually work. The
                                                                answer is not to come down even harder on beneficiaries and
                                                                vilify them further in the media. It is to solve the underlying
                                                                problems. Nothing I have read from the group so far has a
                                                                chance of doing this. In fact what is about to happen is to
                                                                move these people from being just an underclass to being a
                                                                criminal underclass. And crime has already risen keeping pace
                                                                with the unemployment figures as it always does.

Only if it is run with the current punative attitude and it is set Serious consideration of a Universal Basic Income for all     No   Yes
up to fail, it is sustainable as governments and voters want it citizens.
to be. More jobs is the answer, and flexibility with tax
schedules so people can move on and off benefits for short
times or integrate part time work.
No                                                                 The fact that people cannot be pushed into jobs that do not   No   Yes
No. The $ 50 billion figure is a product of your ideology, not                                                                 No    Yes

No                                                               Accomodation supplement levels. Whether the benefit            No   Yes
                                                                 allows people to cover essential living costs How children are
                                                                 affected by the low levels of benefit and how the benefit
                                                                 levels for sole parents relate to the high proportion of nz
                                                                 children living in poverty.
No, the money that is paid to beneficiaries trickels down into Social welfare?                                           No   No
the community and as such is good for more than the
individual. Cutting that would not only hurt those receiving
the benefits but also the places where those benefits are
spent. If a prison can been seen as of economic benefit to a
community because of the money that it brings to a
community through wages then can't the social welfare
benefits also be seen in the same light that it brings benefits
to the greater community.

No. Labour had got numbers on the benefit down from 90s There are plenty and I will out line them when I have more       No   Yes
high to all time lows during their tenure now national/act are time however I've got to go to work. Short answers from
pushing them right back up there where they want them to now on.
help lower real wages. My point is by Labour getting
numbers down means lower benefit costs. Create jobs, lower
unemployment, less people on the dole, more tax take, lower
crime, higher education, better health systems = sustainable
benefit system.
NO                                                                                                                       No   Yes

No. And the numbers you are touting are irresponsible and                                                                No   Yes
plain wrong.

No it needs to be increased Do you want people just to agree                                                             No
with the premiss you already have or do you really want

                                                                                                                         No   Yes
I believe that a caring society has to make provision for those                                                               No   No
who are permanently or temporarily unable to work. We are
all of us dependent at some stage in our life, as young
children and as old people. Others have severe disabilities.
Unemployment is regarded as a structural adjustment,
necessary at times of recession and yet society resents
protecting the vulnerable and locks them into poverty. A
benefit system is an essential part of a civilised society. We
seem to put far more emphasis on chasing those who are
poor and vulnerable than in making sure the wealthy do not
avoid their taxes.

It is, and in particular the cost of superannuation                                                                           No   Yes

That the current benefit system is socially and economically      No comment - but most probably. The terms of ref need to    No   No
unsustainable is a blatantly obvious FACT - there is no           be very wide to cope with the shambolic state of affairs.
question that it is dragging-down society as a whole and the
burden is too great for the productive sector to maintain.
absolutely                                                  Yes you will be swayed by well funded special interest groups No   Yes
                                                            and media to do what is wrong as opposed to what is
                                                            patently necessary and logical

No. If enough jobs are created and the economy improves- Training and upskilling and childcare. Very important I can't   No    No
then we should be Ok. You compare NZ against Sweden - we believe It's not mentioned.
come up very short and unfair.
Economically possibly, socially no. It is counter to social   The elephant in the room: If the current arrangements do not No   No
cohesion.                                                     eliminate unemployment, change them by whatever means
                                                              come to mind, regardless of political bias.

Absolutely.                                                   As I have not read it all I don't know. I mainly wanted to   No   Yes
                                                              voice my opinion as I see it and in what I have said
              The main impact on the benefit system is the provision of        No   I have been the         Yes
              jobs - increasingly economic growth as measured by GDP has            spokesperson for the
              less to do with jobs. Increasingly, jobs are insecure, part time      Palmerston north
              to no hours guaranteed with below poverty line wages. The             Poverty Action Group, a
              issues of a low wage economy need to be addressed before              long time advocate on
              any changes are made to the income support system. Taking             benefit issues and
              away training assistance allowances do not help and neither           worked in a community
              do the loss of income support reaching over 100% when                 employment resource
              more than a low level is earned is a huge disincentive to             centre for 10 years
              reparticipation. In all my years of working with unemployed
              people I did not come across one person who did not want to
              contribute productively and the more traditional options
              were denied them the more they developed an alternative
              lifestyle that met their needs, often in very creative ways. I
              consider an insurance scheme absurd as an answer to
              supposed income support scheme problems and to try and
              make employers liable also absurd. The prvate sector has
              never offered the paid jobs needed by a society and by
              definition has no motivation for this. The employer for social
              and wider economic benefit has always been the public
Absolutely.   You need Lindsay Mitchell in your Working Group. I object to No                              Yes
              people who are net Receivers (rather than Payers) of tax
              dictating how the tax paid by the Payers of tax should be
YES!                                                          There may well be but what I've read so far it appears pretty No    No
                                                              comprehensive and quite frankly I believe we have yet to find
                                                              any politician or party for that matter who will have the will
                                                              or courage to take all but a few of the suggestions forward
                                                              for serious consideration. The one aspect that I would like
                                                              considered is the proposition of paid employment for
                                                              mothers who choose to stay at home to raise their families.
                                                              The criteria being that only one of the parents must be in
                                                              employment, this would apply only to those who have a
                                                              legally recognised relationship be it marriage or partnership.
                                                              This in a broad sense would create more jobs as one of the
                                                              partners in situations where currently both parents work
                                                              would cease to work for a predetermined period, this opens
                                                              up another work place opportunity. The criteria would apply
                                                              on a time line basis and would take account of further
                                                              children and there need for care. The support would need to
                                                              be a meaningful amount but would I am sure considerably
                                                              outway the cost of the existing burden of the DPB, working
                                                              for families and all the added supplimentary costs funded in
                                                              todays social benefit environment. As suggested this would
In the present economic climate yes. Without a determined The root causes of long term beneficiaries the Terms of            No   Yes
sustainable effort on the part of government to reduce those Reference are conviently too narrow.
in the underclass yes. But pushing beneficiaries into further
poverty is not the answer. Education to provide skilled
workers and economic development to provide jobs for those
workers is the responsiblity of government.

Socially and economically as long as those paying taxes        No.                                                          No    Yes
continue to do so it can be sustained the question in reality
should be can it be sustained politically. Problems will arise
when those who are working reach the point where they are
no longer prepared to support those who are not. This could
be through voluntarily stopping work or emigrating. In the
end every dollar the government spends (in the long term)
has to be funded through tax which means somebody has to
earn it.
Yes                                                                I provide accommodation to many long-term beneficiaries. It No      Yes
                                                                   is obvious that most of their problems would vanish if they
                                                                   had a job. Another point that may not be obvious to those
                                                                   living in the professional work-a-day world of government
                                                                   agencies is that what unemployed people do is the same as
                                                                   what employed people do after work and on their days off --
                                                                   they have a few drinks, eat, watch TV, beget children, and
                                                                   sleep. In the absence of a job, people have more time to
                                                                   booze, eat, laze, have sex, and sleep, and hence the problems
                                                                   with addiction, obesity, sloth, and unwanted children. This
                                                                   aint rocket science!

Absolutely. The long term solution to the rising crime rates                                                                      No   No
and the cost of prisons is to stop raising children on benefits.

yes                                                                yes - people need to feel valued and dignified but the state   No   Yes
                                                                   should not be the sole 'person' responsible. Benefits are a
                                                                   priviledge not a lifetime 'right'.
While I think the current government is trying to scare us        The ‘unrelenting focus on work’ is a little frightening in terms No   Yes
with such rhetoric, it doesn’t benefit anyone if the welfare      of encouraging judgement and almost persecution of
system falls over, and being fiscally responsible is equally      beneficiaries. At the end of the day welfare issues won’t be
important as being compassionate                                  solved with a heavy stick a co-operative of compassion,
                                                                  intelligence and economic responsibility must happen for the
                                                                  benefit of all New Zealanders.

oh my another slanted question no i don't, I think we                                                                             No    Yes
thrive off the backs of the poor who are a convenient group
to blame for society's ills.

The current benefit system is a huge drain on the economy         Solo parents who consistently show disregard to                 No    Yes
and aspects of it need a major overhaul. In its current state,    contraception having multiple children so that they can
the drain on the State's finances could lead to honest working    remain on the benefit. I believe that a large number of
families not being sufficently provided for in their retirement   people on the sickness and invalids benefit are abusing the
due to the abbundance of people not willing to accept their       system by exaggerating their conditions to avoid finding
place in a working society.                                       work.
•	es, existing Welfare bill very high and will increase as    E
                                                             •	nsure young people stay at school and give more powers to Yes      Hamilton Budgeting       Yes
population ages                                                                               R
                                                             truancy officers to follow up •	 aise minimum wage so that           Advisory Trust is a
                                                             the actual financial reward of going to work is greater than         service fielded 13,000
                                                             the benefit •	 ore publicity about the true cost of bringing         client contacts and
                                                             up a child. Recent figures released by IRD estimate it costs         enquiries in the 2009-10
                                                             $250,000 to raise a child to 18 years and that is expenses only      financial year. Of the
                                                             •	mphasizing the joint responsibility for the upbringing of          631 new clients, 32%
                                                             children for families not living together •	 andatory                were working, 55% were
                                                             parenting courses for teenage mums •	amily planning                  in receipt of a benefit
                                                             compulsory at schools •	ompulsory parenting courses for              and 13% got income
                                                                              R                               A
                                                             those on DPB •	 aise the drinking age to 20 •	 lcohol, drug          from other sources.
                                                             and quit smoking programmes easily accessible •	 o more              45% were European,
                                                                                       C                         P
                                                             new pokie machines •	ut GST on healthy food •	ay Working             44% Maori 4% Pacific
                                                             for Families and Family Tax Credits straight to child’s school       Island and 7% from other
                                                             to pay for child’s fees, costs and school lunches •	 Increased       ethnicities.
                                                             access (with clear criteria re: passing courses) to practical
                                                             second chance learning to break the cycle of poverty
                                                              C                                                      C
                                                             •	ontrol power prices so that it is more affordable •	ap rent
                                                             charges with private landlords •	 ndertake research on the
                                                             “epidemic” of child deaths in New Zealand and conduct an
                                                                                                                             No                           Yes

Yes, absolutely I agree that the current benefit system is                                                                 Yes    Worknow Ltd             No
socially and economically unsustainable.
Definitely.                                                      Too narrow inscope and not outcome driven.                       No                       Yes

Yes. I fel that supporting people in an unproductive life is                                                                      No   My own opinions .   Yes
morally wrong . The human is a clever animal that needs to
be challenged .

It is, but until the focus is shifted from circumstances alone to I haven't seen them, but if that Rebhorn creature I saw on      No                       Yes
deservedness and character the situation will not change.         television is an example of the people on it than the
                                                                  government can't even apply the principles being asked
                                                                  about in this set of questions. There are no ex beneficiaries
                                                                  on it, noone working at the coal face eg from people's
                                                                  centres, budgeting advice, Salvation Army etc.
No. The government needs to take less time on benefit        1. What is being done about creating appropriate, stable, well No   No
bashing, and focus more on creating long term sustainable    paid employment>?
jobs, the problem will fix itself. Lets say you have jobs at
$1000 per week in the hand, you would reduce your
unemployment overnight by 75%. They should be focusing on
job creation, instead of practicing economic rationalization
which ensures no one wins in the end.

No. I do not.                                                No, but some important things were excluded from the terms No       Yes
                                                             of reference :)
Yes    I think more should be done on "Work as Therapy" This            No   Yes
       currently happens a bit through the volunteer sector where
       some people on benefits try to get some of the skills by doing
       volunteer work. This adds an extra burden on the NGO's in
       that sector who often do not have the resource to provide
       the support that some of these people need.         There was a
       scheme in Taranaki in the 1980's where a skilled forester set
       up a team of physically able mentally handicapped people
       doing forestry work (planting,pruning and weeding) with a
       significant subsidy from government. I currently have a
       patient who would thrive on such a scheme who has been
       unable to find work in open employment because he needs a
       degree of supervision.      I appreciate the view of some from
       the disability sector that they want to have real jobs and
       agree with them but there are a group of disabled people
       with more disability for which this is not currently a realistic
       goal and providing some sheltered employment would fulfill
       all the social needs of working that you outline and possibly
       be a stepping stone to open employment

Yes.   Don't know.                                                     No    Yes
Not without hard evidence shown.                                    One things disability issues not cover by term of reference to No                               Yes
                                                                    require to put research first before proposaL

Yes and No. The current welfare system is already, I believe a      I note Paula Rebstock, Chair of the Welfare Working Group,       Yes   DJ Turner & Associates   Yes
form of insurance policy itself in that if we fail to provide for   appears to be American, and apparently unfamiliar with our             Chartered Accountants
the vulnerable in the way we are doing at current, to ignore        horrific heritage of past high profile NZ mental health cases!
the needs of those most vulnerable in our community may             This is the danger of engaging consultants with no detailed
mean we as a community will pay a very high price in the            understanding of our local history as a nation. If an
form of lives further down the track if we do not maintain the      Insurance type approach was taken by the Government to
current benefit system. However, I believe by listening to          the Welfare System, I wonder what “pre-existing health
those most concerned with the system as consumers (just as          conditions” would be precluded? Schizophrenia? How many
a business will want to listen to its customers' feedback), the     more mental health massacres such as the Raumremu or
Government will find positive ways of ensuring a sustainable        Aromoana Massacres is the community now going to be
benfit system which meets the objectives set out in Q1.             forced to swallow by the Government?
I think the social sustainabilty is more of a concern frankly.   no           No   Yes

No. Jobs must be created. Employers must be able to hire         Don't know   No   Yes
individuals without discriminating against those who have a
crimnal record, that means limited access to police/crimnal
records as outlined in question 4 above.
If you answered yes,what is the main                            If you answered no, what do you do?
sector you work in?

Response                               Other (please specify)   Response
Government (central)


Non-government (Health provider)                                Carer
Government (local)


Home duties

Non-government (Health provider)
Non-government (Other)   community legal services

                         Education provision

Non-government (Other)

Non-government (Other)   Charity

                Home duties
Non-government (Social services
                                  Education (your categories are not very useful for
                                  distinguishing between different types of sectors!)

Non-government (Social services


Non-government (Social services

                                  Tertiary education sector

Government (local)



Non-government (Social services
Non-government (Health provider)



Non-government (Social services

Non-government (Health provider)

Non-government (Social services
Non-government (Health provider)


Non-government (Social services   Retired





Business/company   Student


Government (central)


Non-government (Social services




part time in a real estate office aged 69 no Sky
Self-employed   part-time   Retired


Government (central)


Non-government (Other)   Education
Non-government (Social services

Non-government (Health provider)

Government (local)
Non-government (Social services

Non-government (Other)                                               Beneficiary

Business/company                  social & technology entrepreneur   Volunteer
Non-government (Health provider)

Business/company                   GP Health Clinic / Maori Health


Non-government (Other)   tertiary education
Non-government (Health provider)   Academia

Non-government (Other)   Beneficiary

Non-government (Health provider)

                         If you are receiving a benefit, what sort of benefit do you   Have you received a benefit in the last 12 months? If so, what
                         receive?                                                      type of benefit?

Other (please specify)   Response                                                      Response

                         Invalid's                                                     Invalid's
Domestic Purposes           Domestic Purposes

Independent Youth Benefit
Social researcher and commentator, artist
voluntary organisation

Unpaid work for RACP
Retired(64=not old enough to get national superannuation)
Invalid's   Invalid's
capable of work but black listed   Sickness   Sickness
Invalid's   Invalid's
Voluntarily unemployed and self funding

                                          Domestic Purposes   Domestic Purposes

                                          Unemployment        Unemployment

Domestic Purposes
Sickness   Sickness
All of above apart from retired.   Domestic Purposes   Domestic Purposes
and volunteer in various programmes including house duties
I Provide an equestrian facility for Riding for disabled and
under priviledged children
Home educating children
                          Invalid's      Invalid's

volunteer & beneficiary   Unemployment   Unemployment
Invalid's   Invalid's
Invalid's   Invalid's

Invalid's   Invalid's
What is your postcode? Hint: find your postcode on the NZ
Post website:

Open-Ended Response






Auckland 1042














































3010 - rotorua






To top