Beneficiary Budget Matters

“I was a bit disturbed by the Government calling for increased attendance in Early Childhood. We do not have a problem with non-attendance here!” says Rebecca Occleston, Speaker for Beneficiary Advisory Service, a Community Organisation in Christchurch helping people on Benefits and low incomes.

“We are, however, keen for affordable, quality childcare being available for everyone who needs and wants it.”

Paula Bennett has said the welfare changes would require a significant upfront investment but would ensure fewer people were on long term welfare.

“I say Bennett is talking rubbish,” says Rebecca. “None of these changes ensure fewer people on welfare long term and she has done nothing to back up that claim. What evidence does show is that in a buoyant economic climate where jobs are plentiful, numbers on welfare decreases. We see no sign of the Government trying to create more work.

“We would like to see people being encouraged and helped when they want/find work. However, attempting to force people into work with threats of sanctions does little to improve benefit numbers. It does make people’s lives worse though; if that is their aim then they shall succeed.

That being said, I do approve of more Work and Income staff. The lack of specialist staff and consistent case management means the institution has suffered in the last few years, providing a dwindling service to their clients. Whilst we have little faith in policies being administered fairly and without threats, we can but hope that with training this increased staff will provide some good case management.

We are also rather concerned as to what the wrap around youth services will include. We were vehemently against the proposed policies of their cases and benefits being managed by third parties. There is too much power over vulnerable young people to be held by groups with ambiguous legal status. We hope that improved policies for this group will be suggested at some point!

Contraception

By now you will all have heard the rant against Paula Bennett’s plan to offer long term contraceptive options free to beneficiaries and their teenage children. The insulting nature of it really bothers me – being offered to beneficiaries but not to other low (or middle) income women. I have never yet met someone who deliberately had a child while on a benefit just to continue receiving it! If the Government is worried about unplanned pregnancies, by all means make it known that there is free contraception for everyone. Did they also think education might help too?

I also noticed it was only offered to the women. Did they know there are viable options for men too? I know it is ultimately the woman who has to deal with the immediate issues if a pregnancy occurs, but it takes two to tango! Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG) hasn’t even been mentioned yet as far as I can tell. In fact, it seems Bennett said apart from vasectomies, “there are no other long term options for men.”

What has also not been mentioned is the appropriateness of these forms of contraception and the possible side-effects they may have. We have heard that Paula Bennett does not intend to force these methods on beneficiaries, just make these options available. However, do we believe it will work like that? We have often seen front line staff push agendas either of their own or perceived ones from above, even though what they are doing goes directly against the policy. We, like many others, are also concerned about the slippery slope. E.g. if it starts voluntary, how long before they make it compulsory for some? Then all…

The implication that only beneficiaries (and their teenage daughters) have unwanted pregnancies (the insinuation being it is unwanted by society) is offensive and injudicious. This is not going to make things better for people on benefits – it only encourages the prejudice that already exists.

The policy of being required to look for work after your child turns one (if you have another child while on a benefit) is supposed to encourage women to not have more children on a benefit. I gather this contraceptive policy is to give women other options. The idea is to stop people deliberately getting pregnant in order to remain on a benefit. In my time (over 10 years) of working with beneficiaries, I have yet to meet anyone who would do this. However, I would think in the rare case where someone would do this, wouldn’t this policy just encourage them to have children every year? I fail to see how this in any way aids their agenda. Perhaps they should rethink the whole thing!

ENDS

© Scoop Media