The criteria excluded one client whose husband dropped dead suddenly in Australia aged just 55. The wife went to Australia for the funeral, but when she returned to New Zealand she was still in such a state of shock that her doctor wrote a letter to Work and Income saying she needed to spend two weeks with her daughters in Australia to recover. The daughters paid her air fare, but Work and Income still stopped her benefit.
In another case, a woman went to South Africa to be with her twin sister, who was dying of cancer.
"I had to fight to get her those extra two weeks there," Ms Pattie said.
"Those are hard-call things. It's not about going for a holiday because you feel like a break. By no means, on their benefits, they would ever save enough to buy a plane ticket. Someone else is paying."
She said the high rate of overseas travel in Auckland partly reflected the large number of Pacific beneficiaries who went back to the islands for family events such as unveilings. The last census found that 39 per cent of Aucklanders, compared with 18 per cent of New Zealanders outside Auckland, were born overseas.
The figures supplied to Child Poverty Action by the Ministry of Social Development also show that the number of all beneficiaries with children whose benefits were cut or stopped because of failing to meet work obligations rose from 650 at the end of June last year, just before the new rules took effect, to 965 at the end of September. But the number fell back to 579 by the end of December as beneficiaries apparently became more used to the new rules.
The ministry said their benefits were cut or stopped "because the beneficiaries did not have a good and sufficient reason for not meeting their work-related obligations, such as failure to attend an appointment with Work and Income or failure to comply with a step in their work plan".
At the end of December, 369 beneficiaries with children had had their benefits cut or stopped for less than four weeks, and 210 for four weeks or longer. Those who did not re-comply quickly must have had other ways to survive, such as support from other family members or possibly undeclared cash jobs.
Surprisingly, the ministry said nobody had their benefit cut or suspended up to the end of December for failing to meet the new "social obligations" introduced in July last year, including requirements to enrol their children with primary health care providers, keeping up to date with core medical checks and enrolling children in preschool from age 3 or school from age 5 or 6.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said parents could not lose more than half of their benefits, and were not liable to any cuts in extra support such as accommodation supplement, to protect children.
"It's very easy to have a sanction lifted even before it affects payments," she said.
"People can provide a good and sufficient reason, like transport or childcare issues or re-comply by simply attempting to meet their obligation, by verbally agreeing to a job interview for example."
"Our welfare reforms are seeing tens of thousands of beneficiaries moving into work each year, and 30,000 fewer children living in benefit dependent homes compared to two years ago."
