000			03113nam a22003257a 4500
999			_c6319 _d6319
005			20250625151512.0
008			190717s2019 -nz||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_aHealey, Olivia _98506
245			_a'Relationship status' and the welfare system in Aotearoa New Zealand _cOlivia Healey and Jennifer Curtin
260			_aAuckland, New Zealand : _bPublic Policy Institute, University of Auckland ; _bChild Poverty Action Group, _c2019
300			_aelectronic document (48 pages) ; PDF file
500			_aA report prepared for the Peter McKenzie Project, May 2019
520			_aThis report argues that New Zealand’s benefit system reflects traditional thinking about dependence on a partner and relationships within a family. However, relationships can be complex and the family unit has changed considerably in the last 60 years. Current rules can act as a disincentive for family relationship building which is good for both adults and children. The definition of what constitutes a relationship is unclear, and decisions are often left in the hands of Work and Income staff. The penalties for getting this wrong can be long lasting for both women and children. This can lead to accusations of ‘benefit fraud’ and possible conviction in court. The investigative process during a review of entitlements can be intrusive and demeaning. There is growing concern regarding the reliability of the anonymous tip-off process. This report finds Ministry staff are urged to be mindful of informants’ motives yet it appears that the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ rhetoric often prevails. New Zealand, Australia and the UK have similar punitive approaches to beneficiaries. A ‘dob in’ culture is particularly strong in New Zealand while tip-off recording systems and relationship verification forms are common forms of surveillance elsewhere. Relationship rules require immediate reform. A system based on kindness and empathy rather than distrust should form the basis of our welfare system. Further work would require a qualitative study, supported by sole parents, organisations assisting sole parent beneficiaries, and advocacy groups such as Auckland Action Against Poverty and Child Poverty Action Group. (Executive summary). This report was published following the release of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report (#6242). There is comment on that report in the CPAG media release. Record #6319
610		0	_96015 _aChild Poverty Action Group
650			_aCHILD POVERTY _9116
650			_aFAMILIES _9238
650			_aGOVERNMENT POLICY _9275
650			_aPARENTS _9430
650			_aPOVERTY _9453
650			_aSOCIAL POLICY _9551
650		4	_aSOCIAL SERVICES _9555
650			_aSOCIAL WELFARE _9559
650			_aTAXATION _98507
651		4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
700			_aCurtin, Jennifer _98508
856			_uhttps://www.cpag.org.nz/s/1907-Repartnering-Report-PPI_CPAG-Final-July-jsw4.pdf _zDownload report, PDF
856			_uhttps://www.cpag.org.nz/news/new-report-reflects-outdated-and-damaging/ _zCPAG media release
942			_2ddc _cREPORT