Social welfare benefits anomalies a ‘shambles’

Press, 28 September 1984, Page 5

Social welfare benefits anomalies a ‘shambles’

The social welfare benefit system was attacked at a seminar on unemployment in Christchurch yesterday. Mr Terry Hill, co-ordina-tor of the Unemployed Resource Centre, told the 65 people at the seminar that the benefit system was “in a shambles.” Some benefits were taxable, others not. Some people were paid more than others for no apparent reason. Some had additional advantages such as telephone concessions, yet the needs of most beneficiaries were similar, subject to the number of dependants, said Mr Hill.

The superannuation benefit bore no relationship to need and a person could hold a job while drawing the full benefit. Those choosing to continue working after they were 60 or who had high investment income should pay an additional penal tax on their benefit, he said. The seminar, organised by the Resource Centre, was attended by professional social workers, representatives of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, youth workers, work co-opera-tives, the member of Parliament for Yaldhurst, Mrs

Margaret Austin, and the unemployed. One professional worker said that all benefits should be abolished and replaced with one benefit, the sole criterion for which was a proved need, whether because of loss of income or loss of support. The benefit should be linked with the cost-of-living index. Representatives of the Christchurch Unemployed Rights Centre said that they were desperately in need of financial support, especially after the Canterbury Trades Council had withdrawn its support earlier this year. A Trades Council grant had been withdrawn because the Rights Centre had refused to align itself with the solution which the Trades Council had for unemployment, and that was to vote the Labour Party into power, said a spokesman.

The unemployed felt that they should not have to be forced into meaningless, monotonous, or degrading jobs.

The Social Welfare Department’s field inquiry units had earned a reputation as “bludger busters” because of the way they handled their inquiries with the unemployed, said the

Rights Group representatives.

Mr Michael Inns, a Group Employment Liaison Scheme worker, said that there were now more than 80 different sources of financial support or unemployment programmes, yet it was often found that the aims of the various cooperative work schemes or trusts did not correspond with the criteria or rules of any one scheme or source of funds.

“I can justifably say that the majority of groups that I have worked with have been severaly disadvantaged by having to fit within criteria set down by particular schemes,” said Mr Inns.

The Labour Department had banned processing all public sector schemes until it caught up with processing all the private sector work currently submitted. This backlog of work was said to be because of staff shortages with the department, Mr Inns said.

The management and policing of the schemes tended to create more work and delays. Young people sometimes suggested innovations for employment projects only to be pushed back to unem-

ployment because their proposals did not fit within “criteria.”

One example was that a group of long-term young unemployed people wanted to tour the South Island doing drama and performing to community groups. “The Labour Department in Christchurch has now decided to interpret the criteria as saying that arts schemes are open only to unemployed actors and that these schemes should lead to full-time acting careers. “The department suggests we find labouring-type schemes for the group and that they do their acting after work,” Mr Inns said.