REMOVE OUTDATED RELATIONSHIP INCOME RULES
Welfare system rules around relationships unjustly punish and stigmatise already struggling single parents. The constitution of the family unit and nature of relationships have changed considerably in the last 60 years and rules need to change to reflect that. There are severe financial implications for benefit recipients who enter or who are already in a marriage or a de facto relationship.
RECOMMENDATIONS
“Relationship” definition
1. Move to individual rates of entitlement for benefits for unemployment, disability, and sickness, which do not change with marital status. Create individual thresholds for extra earnings for each person who qualifies for a benefit.
2. For sake of consistency, clarity and humanity, the “relationship” definition and interpretation used by MSD should be aligned, and be as close as possible, to the Property Relationships Act definition and its interpretation used by the justice system for the purposes of allocating resources in the event of a break-up. Benefit recipients should not be considered in a de facto relationship unless
a. They live with a partner and have a child with that partner (ie they are parents of the same child); or
b. They agree they live with a partner and they agree they have lived together for more than 3 years; and they also agree that the relationship is not marred by extreme levels of psychological physical and financial violence.
Investigations
3. In order to reduce malicious allegations, disregard anonymous allegations and allegations made by former partners and co-parents of the person subject to the allegations.
4. Abolish the use of criminal conviction and prison sentences for infringement of welfare-system relationship rules for caregivers of dependent children.
5. Ensure MSD has discretionary power to waive all relationship-related debts, re-align MSD debt-waiving ability to that of Inland Revenue, and make this alignment permanent.
6. Mandate an independent assessment of the impact of current MSD investigative processes on individuals, whānau and families, including children; and use this to ensure investigative processes do not cause undue harm.
7. Hold an official independent investigation into the harms done to the many families accused of relationship fraud, especially in the 1990s and early 2000s. The independent investigation should have the authority to determine and order debt forgiveness. The process must be respectful of the huge vulnerability of affected women and children.
8. Abolish the Benefits Review Committee, establish a review process independent of MSD, and provide beneficiaries with legal aid to assist them in preparing their cases.
IMPACTS AND INDICATORS
If implemented, these actions would be steps towards moving Aotearoa to be a nation where all children and families flourish free from poverty.
• The welfare system does not influence decisions people make about their relationships.
• Prosecution and debt recovery processes are in line with principles of natural justice.
• Enhanced wellbeing for children’s caregivers (indicator: less loneliness reported by sole parents in StatsNZ Wellbeing Indicators).
• Children in couple families supported by a benefit are not disadvantaged.
Updating relationship rules for welfare is relevant to:
· The Crown meeting Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and New Zealand meeting its obligations under the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
· Meeting targets for UN Sustainable Development Goal 5: “Gender equality” including “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere” and Goal 10: “Reduced inequalities,” including empowering and promoting the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status”.
· The national vision “that New Zealand be the best place in the world for children and young people”.
Disability funding ‘pause’ causes confusion, trauma, and disbelief