Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search


Dave Crampton's Big News: The In- Work Payment

The In- Work Payment

By Dave Crampton


The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has won the right to take legal action against the Government over a policy of excluding beneficiary families from the $60.00 per week "in-work payment" that commences next year as part of the Working for Families package. This payment replaces the $15.00 per week child tax credit, which was introduced instead of inflation-adjusting family support.

The distinction is that family support is paid to all families, but the child tax credit is currently paid to low income families who do not recieve a benefit. CPAG says that the in-work payment discriminates against beneficiary families, including unemployed, sickness, invalids and DPB recipients, and thus breaches the Human RIghts Act. The group says that children whose parents are on a benefit are discriminated against as they do not recieve the child tax credit, or will not recieve the in-work payment.

But do you really think that the payments, in their entirety, go towards raising kids when they are actually paid to the parents - a bit like child support payments? How do we know such payments are not going on the rent, the power or the HP repayments? Perhaps this is why it is going to be called the in-work payment, to stop the pretence that the money in its entirety goes towards raising kids.

If the in-work payment was paid to beneficiaries who were not in work, not only would that close the gap between welfare and work for some, it will mean that other beneficiaries will get much more in the hand, as it will most likely be classed as income for the purposes of the Special Benefit, meaning that those who recieve a Special Benefit will get a reduction in that benefit due to the in-work payment, whereas earners will get no reduction in their salary unless it is sufficiently high. That is also discriminatory, but what is CPAG saying about that?

And what about those beneficaries who turn down a job offer becvause the pay is too low of it is not their perfect job - it would be absurd if they get the in-work payment. Another matter is those on the DPB who do not name their child's father. They get about a $28.00 reduction in their benefit per child. If they were to name the father/s they`ll get more increase in their benefit per child than any child tax credit.

Why should these mothers get the in work payment? The CPAG should be calling for that $28.00 be paid into a trust until the children reach 18 if they really care about poverty. At least then they`ll be able to contribute toward their study costs and minimise their student loans ( but then what does it matter if it is going to bee interest free, anyway).

Many people may not be aware that superannuitants and ACC beneficiaries will be able to get the in work payment, provided they work 30 hours a week, or 20 hours for a sole parent.

The point of the in-work payment is to assist people who are in work, or, more correctly, not on a benefit. Yet a low income family with three kids will get a maximum of just $15.00 extra with the payment. A benficiary family who gets a job for 8 hours at $10.00 an hour and then gets the in work payment will get an extra $140.00 per week on top of their benefit, and will not lose any of their family support payments.

WIth family support, the in-work payment, and the accommodation supplement, (not to mention the food grants) a family on the unemployment benefit with three children would be getting over $16.00 per hour. So why would a partner take a $14.00 an hour job when they recieve the in-work payment ?

That's why the Government does not want the in work payment paid to beneficaries. In the unlikelihood of it losing the case, whats the bet that the beneficiary abatement threshhold for earning will reduce from $80.00 to $20.00, thus disadvantaging beneficaries without kids who work part time.

Wouldn't it be nice if wages were high enough for the in work payment to be unnecessary.


© Scoop Media

Top Scoops Headlines


Binoy Kampmark: Predictable Monstrosities: Priti Patel Approves Assange’s Extradition
The only shock about the UK Home Secretary’s decision regarding Julian Assange was that it did not come sooner. In April, Chief Magistrate Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring expressed the view that he was “duty-bound” to send the case to Priti Patel to decide on whether to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 grafted from the US Espionage Act of 1917... More>>

Digitl: Are we happy living in Handy's Age of Unreason?
In 1989 Charles Handy wrote The Age of Unreason. It's a book that looked forward to a time where telecommuting would be an everyday reality. We live in that world today, although we use the term working from home. The book contains other predictions that were on the money... More>>

Reactionary Succession: Peter Dutton, Australia’s New Opposition Leader
The devastation wrought on Australia’s Coalition government on May 21 by the electorate had a stunning, cleansing effect. Previously inconceivable scenarios were played out in safe, Liberal-held seats that had, for decades, seen few, if any challenges, from an alternative political force. But the survival of one figure would have proved troubling, not only to the new Labor government, but to many Liberal colleagues lamenting the ruins. The pugilists and head knockers, however, would have felt some relief. Amidst the bloodletting, hope... More>>

Digitl: Infrastructure Commission wants digital strategy
Earlier this month Te Waihanga, New Zealand’s infrastructure commission, tabled its first Infrastructure Strategy: Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa. Te Waihanga describes its document as a road map for a thriving New Zealand... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: Leaking For Roe V Wade
The US Supreme Court Chief Justice was furious. For the first time in history, the raw judicial process of one of the most powerful, and opaque arms of government, had been exposed via media – at least in preliminary form. It resembled, in no negligible way, the publication by WikiLeaks of various drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership... More>>

The Conversation: Cheaper food comes with other costs – why cutting GST isn't the answer

As New Zealand considers the removal of the goods and services tax (GST) from food to reduce costs for low income households, advocates need to consider the impact cheap food has on the environment and whether there are better options to help struggling families... More>>