Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Legal expertise required

Regarding the matter of beneficiaries adding children to an existing benefit, legislation currently before select committee states,

Where a sole parent has a subsequent child on benefit, their
work expectations will be deferred for 12 months and will resume
based on the age of the previous youngest dependent child.

 Further into the bill (pg 16) the following appears:

Beneficiaries   having additional
dependent child:  exempting people
resident in certain overseas countries, and
eligibility for sole parent support

.....The third amendment inserts a new section 60GAE(3A), which varies section 60GAE(2) as applied to a determination of a specified kind of beneficiary’ s eligibility for sole parent support. The variation re-quires an additional dependent child of the beneficiary not to be included in the determination not merely once that child is aged 1 year old or over, but instead at all times after that child is born.

Am I correct in interpreting this as meaning at discretion Work and Income can decide not to include a newborn when assessing eligibility for benefit type? So if a sole parent beneficiary has been assessed eligible for Jobseeker Support, and is being work-tested accordingly, the birth of another baby will not change that?

It's complicated and requires reading of the section from pg 16-17


Anonymous said...

Unlikely - and even if it did, what's the chance the Labour-appointed WINZ leftist bureaucrats will enforce the new rules?

Face it Lindsay - incremental change is never going to make any difference to the welfarist mentality of NZ.

The only solution is the fire them all - and stop the benefits

Anonymous said...

I wonder if that covers people leaving relationships with a young child and pregnant, for the first time applying.

The next child, even if born a week or two later, will be 'added' to the benefit. In Aus they cover this by 'any child added to the benefit within 10 months (to cover overdue babies) to cover such situations.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that they have dropped the 15 hour requirement for childcare, and just state enrolled in a registered childcare centre.
I do not think we should be cutting peoples benefits for taking children to Kindy (only 6-10 hours for 3 year olds) Playcentre or Kohunga. Kindergarten and the Playcentre associations both stood up at select committee meetings against the 15 hour requirement. I wonder if that means it has worked and common sense has prevailed.

I read that bit you are talking about as, there are some instances where they will not enforce the jobseekers benefit, allowing some to stay on the sole support? I suppose this would happen for disabled children that need round the clock care? People that leave a relationship pregnant with a child already? I don't know. Could be reading it wrong.