Left Further Behind - Child Poverty Action Group

The Social Assistance (Future Focus) legislation introduced by the National government in 2010
also heavily emphasised work rather than security or adequacy of social security. To signal this
emphasis more clearly the Bill was renamed as the Social Assistance (New Work Tests, Incentives,
and Obligations) Amendment 2010. In the original Bill, the government noted that “the main objective
of the changes is to ensure a fairer system of social assistance with an unrelenting focus on work”
(Future Focus Bill, 2010). The Bill then went on to say:
the changes reflect and reinforce the principles that underpin the Social Security Act. These
are that: work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and
economic well-being; the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work;
people for whom work is not possible at the moment should be assisted to plan for work in the
future and develop employment focused skills. (Future Focus Bill 2010)
The latter two changes in the legislation reflected this emphasis.
Significantly, the Ministry of Social Development’s Regulatory Impact Statement stated that it would
be impossible to assess whether the legislation was effective:
there is no research currently available which accurately quantifies the size and behaviour
response from these changes in policies. This prevents estimates, with a degree of accuracy
required, from being made of the number of people who will move from benefit to work over a year
as a result of the proposed changes. (Ministry of Social Development, 2010a, para 4)
Furthermore, the Bill was judged to be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993, on the basis that it
discriminated on the grounds of sex, marital status and family status, and that the limitation on the
right to be free from discrimination which arose from clauses in the Bill could not be justified under
the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Office of the Attorney-General, 2010).
The approach taken in these legislative changes and in the Welfare Working Group’s report stands in
marked contrast to the approach adopted by the Alternative Welfare Working Group (O’Brien et al.,
2010a, 2010b). The Alternative Welfare Working Group was established by Caritas, Anglican Social
Justice, and Beneficiary Advocacy Federation of New Zealand in response to the WWG process. It
argued that changes to the welfare system required attention to a range of fundamental questions
including: economic and employment growth; fair, appropriate and consistent treatment by staff in
Work and Income; and improved benefit levels, particularly for families with children. Its approach
to welfare reform argued strongly that the definition of “work” could not, and should not, be limited
to paid employment but needed to extend more widely to include caring for both dependent children
and dependent adults. In contrast to the WWG, the Alternative Welfare Working Group argued that
welfare ought to be provided on the basis of “the unrelenting pursuit of well-being” (O’Brien et al.,
2010b).
Welfare, work and poverty
Far from reflecting and reinforcing the principles that underpin the Social
Security Act, recent changes to the legislation signal a significant departure
from a key goal of social security: benefit adequacy and poverty prevention.
The 1972 Royal Commission on Social Security set out a basis for establishing
benefit levels that it said should be based on a sense of belonging and
participation. That is, benefits ought to enable beneficiaries to have a sense
28