When Paula Bennett was Minister for Social Development she wanted to stop people adding children to an existing benefit to avoid work. So the subsequent child rule was created. If a beneficiary adds a child to a benefit, when that child turns one, the parent will still have the same work-obligations based on age of the previous child - part-time between ages 3 and 14; full-time thereafter - hardly onerous.
Now Sepuloni wants the rule removed. This is an extract from support material that accompanies the bill to achieve this:
I take issue with the adjective "small" to describe the number of people who have added a child to a benefit and are currently affected by Bennett's rule. Almost 9,000 in total.
2,533 have added a child to their benefit when the next oldest was 14 or older (which is why they are currently on the Jobseeker benefit).
Let's call it careless procreation at best. It is not good for the babies to be born onto benefits. To say otherwise defies commonsense.
But note that the government analyst who wrote the support material says "lighter" work obligations are beneficial and:
3 comments:
Bashing the poor and unfortunate at the bottom while studiously ignoring things like Corporations and individuals paying no tax through tax havens and various constructs.
Who are the real parasites in society?
Lindsay, you are absolutely right. The policy which Paula Bennett initiated was designed to help both the children and their sole parents - encouraging adults to be dependent on the state is not good for the adults or their children.
Not so worried about this since over the next 5 or 6 years the housing situation itself will tend to discourage more children.
Post a Comment