Beneficiaries ‘better off’

Press, 15 November 1984, Page 1

Beneficiaries ‘better off’

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

The Minister of Social Welfare, Mrs Hercus, has made another and more detailed attempt to explain why beneficiaries are better off rather than worse off as a result of the Budget.

A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the Government in the last six days since the Budget was published, both from within Parliament and by beneficiaries outside it. “Beneficiaries should study the whole picture carefully before jumping to the conclusion that they have been disadvantaged,” Mrs Hercus said. “The facts show they are substantially better off than they were before the Budget.” . Figures released show increases in basic benefit rates since the beginning of

the previous Government’s wage freeze in July, 1982. Mrs Hercus said that these figures showed that the basic benefit rate for a married couple with one child had risen 19.2 per cent and the rate of a solo parent with one child, 18.6 per cent. Rates for both single people and married couples without children had risen 17.8 per cent. These increases included the latest rises in the Budget. These figures showed clearly that, at a time when wage-earners had received only one small increase of $8 a week gross, or 2.9 per cent on the average wage, the beneficiaries had received substantial increases, she said. Total increases during the wage freeze had been 14.6 per cent for solo parents with one child, 14.3 per cent for married couples with one child, and 14 per cent for both the single person

and married couple basic rate.

In dollar terms, a married couple with one child had received a total increase of $19.50; a solo parent with ode child, $18.50; a married couple, $18.50; and a single beneficiary, $ll.lO, Mrs Hercus said.

During the same period, wage-earning families had received only $8 gross, or a 2.9 per cent increase.

This had been one of the chief reasons behind the introduction of the Family Care programme. Wageearners had lagged behind and it was clear that many were facing extreme hardship, because of the previous Administration’s wage freeze.

Wage-earners had needed help fast, and Family Care gave it. Family Care was also intended to help wage-earn-ing families cope with extra

costs which would come from the Budget. For this same reason, basic benefit rates and child supplement for beneficiaries were also being raised substantially, well in advance of the usual six-monthly benefit review. “However, the Government is aware that there will still be some beneficiaries, as there will still be Some wage-earners, who will find it hard to meet essential additional costs from their limited income,” Mrs Hercus said.

As a result, the special benefit available from the Social Welfare Department had been expanded and made more flexible.! (This special benefit involves a detailed analysis of the applicant’s assets and personal finances by the department, takes a long time to process, and is at the discretion of the department.) “If anyone is facing genuine hardship, I urge them to

apply for this benefit,” Mrs Hercus said. While much attention had been focused on the $20,470 cut-off point for Family Care for a family with one child, Mrs Hercus said, it was important to realise that the vast majority of people receiving Family Care would be on incomes considerably lower than this.

The fact was that a wageearning family on a weekly wage of $lB5 with one child to support might still end up with less money in the hand — even with the Family Care payment of $lO — than a beneficiary receiving an accommodation benefit. As of March 31 this year, Mrs Hercus said, almost 40,000 beneficiaries had been receiving a full or partial accommodation benefit of $32 a week. Of these the greatest number, 21,000, had been domestic purposes beneficiaries.