Editorial: New Social Development broom has a big beneficiary base to sweep up

Minister for Social Development Louise Upston.

Opinion

EDITORIAL

Louise Upston has a large mess to clean up as the new Minister for Social Development, and she’s going to need more than detergent, sunlight and elbow grease to do that job, because the rising number of people on benefits paints a picture of deeply ingrained institutional welfare-ism.

There are 190,000 people on the Jobseeker benefit – 67,000 more than six years ago, and by the ministry’s own modelling (surprise, surprise), people are staying on welfare longer: 13 years on average.

In 2023, there were 351,759 people - up 7137 on 2022 - whose main income came from a benefit.

To the majority of high and low-income hard-working New Zealanders, those numbers are untenable, especially when industries are crying out for workers.

Work and Income NZ.

Whoever inherited the Social Development portfolio needed to have a thick skin and tough-as-teak demeanour. Fortunately - or unfortunately for a small group of beneficiaries who have already been ring-fenced - Upston looks up to the task.

She has been the minister-in-waiting, so the number of people on a range of benefits should come as no surprise, nor the amount of money paid out weekly.

She has already threatened to cut payments to beneficiaries who don’t tow the line via the traffic light approach:

• Green - No change to benefit for those who prepare for and look for work;
• Orange - First or second breach of obligations would require more regular check-ins and/or attendance at job workshops;
• Red - A third breach would see sanctions including benefit cuts or suspension, money management and mandatory community work experience.

Upston claims many on welfare have become benefit-dependent, and a small percentage of those people can’t be bothered getting off their butts or the benefit.

Liberals will claim this is another case of benefit-bashing by an “unkind” government.

But Upston is between a rock and a tough place because she’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. The real concern should be: What happens to children when their family’s benefit tap is turned off? They did not ask for the living situations they find themselves in, but are likely to become collateral damage in this overarching and enveloping approach.

When Q&A host Jack Tame repeatedly asked Upston what would happen to these children, Upston managed a quicker side-step than Warriors comeback man Roger Tuivasa-Sheck.

But Upston should realise welfare dependency is not a career choice.

Yes, there will be some who abuse the welfare system, but the majority of those on a benefit would rather not be.

So instead of a chest-thumping Social Development clean-up, maybe a small broom and dustpan might have better consequences.