Kerre Woodham: Charities don't need non-complying beneficiaries

Two new ‘non-financial’ sanctions have come into force today for beneficiaries, who, in the words of the MSD, do not meet their obligations or, as other people might put it, who do not get off their arses and go and look for a job.

Some people may have half their weekly benefits put onto a payment card for four weeks, that can only be spent on essential items at approved shops. Others may also have to find volunteer work for at least five hours each week, again for four weeks.

Remember though, as the Minister for Social Development confirmed, it's only a tiny proportion of job seekers who are having a laugh – 98% are complying with their obligations and are doing what they can to get off the benefit, so it's only really going to apply to 2% of those on the benefit.

But as former Welfare Expert Advisory Group member Phil O'Reilly told Ryan Bridge on Early Edition this morning, sanctions can and do work. 

Sanctions do work. Exactly how well they work is always open to debate. They work for two reasons. One is they encourage people to get off the benefit. But secondly, very importantly for people like you and me who are paying tax in order to give persons a benefit, they keep our faith in the system too. That if you're not going to play by the rules, there's going to be a bit of a sanction on you, so they do actually work in those two contexts.

And I think that's important to remember too, it's not just about those who are on the benefit, it's about those people who are paying, in effect, the benefit.

There has to be faith in the system to keep the system going. People won't suffer a financial loss per say, and since they'll be restricted as to what they can spend their benefit on if they are failing to meet their obligations.

I'm less enthusiastic about the volunteering requirements. The poor old charity sector is doing it tough enough as it is without some hapless souls turning up reluctantly, looking for things to do because they have to.

I don't see why voluntary organisations should be charged with the task of straightening out recalcitrant beneficiaries on top of everything else they do.

Compulsory training courses or upskilling by MSD should be the way to go as far as I'm concerned. If there are people who want to volunteer, who have something to offer, fine -  fill your boots. But I imagine they'd be doing that already if they felt they had something to offer.

What on Earth are you going to do with a couple of individuals who don't want to go and get a job?

We're talking the tiny proportion of beneficiaries there who don't want to go and get a job, who don't know how to go and get a job, who don't believe they have anything to offer anyone - they'll have had the stuffing knocked out of them after being on a benefit for years - turning up at your local Hospice shop or your SPCA or whatever, what on Earth are you supposed to do with them?

David Seymour, whose party campaigned on the policies, said sanctions should go further.

He said no country can succeed with one in six working age people on a benefit and ACT wants to see money in kind given as a benefit instead of cash. If you want the freedom, he says, to spend cash as your own, then earn it yourself.

Which is all very well and good when the jobs are there but it's widely acknowledged that we're seeing unemployment rise. Hopefully it will peak very shortly, but we are at a time of high unemployment relative to the circumstances of this country. 

I'm all for getting the sanctions out for the 2% putting restrictions on what they can spend the money on so that taxpayers will have faith in the system, but the volunteering, no.  

Also, some of you may have a different view now about being on a benefit. Prior to the Covid years, many people had never experienced the shock of losing a job. During the Covid year

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News
Talks ADB.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Two new non financial sanctions have come into force today
for beneficiaries who, in the words of the MSD, do
not meet their obligations, or as other people might put it,
who do not get off their asses and go and
look for a job. Some people may have half their
weekly benefit put onto a payment card for four weeks

(00:33):
that can only be spent on essential items at approved shops.
Others may also have to find volunteer work for at
least five hours each week, again for four weeks. Remember, though,
as the Minister for Social Development confirmed, it's only a
tiny proportion of job seekers who are having a laugh.

(00:54):
Ninety eight percent are complying with their obligations and are
doing what they can to get off the benefit, so
it's only really going to apply to two percent of
those on the benefit. But as former Welfare Expert Advisory
Group member philo'riley told Ryan Bridge on early edition This Morning,
sanctions can and do work.

Speaker 3 (01:15):
Sanctions do work. Exactly how well they work is always
open to debate. They work for two reasons. One is
they encourage people to get off the benefit, but secondly,
very importantly for people like you and me who are
paying tax in order to give persons a befefort. They
keep our faith in the system too, that if you're
going to be if you're not going to play by
the rules, there's going to be a bit of a
sanction on you. So they do actually work in mostly contact.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
And I think that's important to remember too. It's not
just about those who are on the benefit, it's about
those people who are paying in effect the benefit. There
has to be faith in the system to keep the
system going, so people won't serve for a financial loss
per se. It's just they'll be restricted as to what

(01:59):
they can spend their benefit on if they are failing
to meet their obligations. Enthusiastic about the volunteering requirements, The
poor old charity sector is doing it tough enough as
it is without some hapless souls turning up reluctantly looking
for things to do because they have to. I don't

(02:20):
see why voluntary organizations should be charged with the task
of straightening out reculcitrant beneficiaries on top of everything else
they do. Compulsory training courses or upskilling by msds should
be the way to go. As far as I'm concerned.
I mean, if there are people who want to volunteer
who have something to offer, fine filure boots. But I

(02:42):
imagine they'd be doing that already if they felt they
had something to offer. What on earth are you going
to do with a couple of individuals who don't want
to go and get a job, don't and we're talking
the tiny proportion of beneficiaries here who don't want to
go and get a job, who don't know how to

(03:03):
go and get a job, who don't believe they have
anything to offer anyone. They'll have had the stuffing knocked
out of them after being on a benefit for years,
turning up at your local hospice shop or your SPCA
or whatever. What on earth are you supposed to do
with them? David Seymour, whose party campaigned on the policy,
said sanctions should go further. He said no country can

(03:26):
succeed with one in six working age people on a benefit,
and Act wants to see money and kind given as
a benefit instead of cash. If you want the freedom,
he says, to spend cash as your own, then earn
it yourself, which is all very well and good when

(03:48):
the jobs are there, but it's widely acknowledged that we're
seeing unemployment rise. It's hope that we're hopefully it will
peak very shortly, but we are at a time of
high unemployment relative to the circumstances of this country. And
you know, I'm all forgetting the sanctions out for the

(04:09):
two percent, putting restrictions on what they can spend the
money on so that taxpayers will have faith in the system.
But the volunteering, no, that just I mean, I'd love
to hear from any charitable organization that thinks they can
take on people who have been shirking their obligations to

(04:34):
find work and do something with them, you know, have
it of benefit to the person who's come looking to
do the work and for the organization itself. I mean,
I'd be quite happy to take I don't know, ten
or twelve fit young people who want to dig out
pampas and ginger. Up north. You know, there's a council

(04:56):
reserve bordering our property. I've spent a bloody fortune getting
rid of the pampason ginger and replanting natives on my place,
but the reserve they just haven't got the money to keep.
On top of all the noxious plants on the council reserve.
I'd be quite happy to take on some unemployed people

(05:17):
who want to volunteer and spend a day in the bush,
a few hours a week. I'll pay them, give them
a good feed, and if they want to help stand
up of the noxious plants. Perhaps, perhaps you know there
are environmental places that would be able to do something
with people who are fit and strong and healthy and capable,

(05:41):
and who can't do too much damage out in the bush.
But I where else would you put them? These are
people who are unable to find it within themselves to
get the motivation to get up and find themselves paid employment.
What on earth are they going to do as volunteers. Also,

(06:02):
some of you may have a different view now about
being on a benefit. Prior to the COVID years, many
people had never experienced the shock of losing a job.
During the COVID years, people lost work almost overnight, and

(06:22):
they were extraordinary times trying to find something to do
in an industry that had disappeared for a time, or
in the recession that followed. You might have suddenly found
yourself surplus to requirements because the company you had worked
for for years was in really straightened circumstances and had

(06:45):
to ditch people overboard to survive, so you might have
a different view about what it means to be unemployed
and looking for work.

Speaker 1 (06:58):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio U