Rotorua men win better deal for single parents | Rotorua News | Local News in Rotorua
Rotorua men win better deal for single parents
Rotorua beneficiaries advocate Paul Blair. Picture: Tracey Robinson (291204tr9)
By CHERIE TAYLOR in Rotorua
Three Rotorua beneficiaries have forced a law change for single parents with split custody of their children.
They have achieved it through an out-of-court settlement with the Ministry of Social Development.
On October 1, 1991, a law was introduced to stop two parents living apart but who had split-custody of their children from both receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit. One was eligible for the sole-parent benefit and all the benefits that went with it, while the other was entitled to the unemployment benefit.
Rotorua beneficiaries advocate and sole parent Paul Blair argued this was not fair as the parent receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit was entitled to earn more money when working than the parent on the dole.
Parents receiving the single parent benefit were also entitled to childcare subsidies, a non-recoverable training incentive allowance if attending a course, and didn't have to be work tested, Mr Blair said.
Rotorua sole parents Leon Broughton, Richard Amoroa and Mr Blair started legal proceedings in the High Court at Rotorua against the chief executive of the ministry more than a year ago in an attempt to get a better deal for parents who were not entitled to the sole parent benefit.
In most cases it was the father who was disadvantaged, said Mr Blair.
"We wanted to clarify the situation so it was fairer for everyone," he said. "It's not about more money. It's about the extra benefits we can get by being on the DPB. If these people had known, they might have been able to get childcare and go to work. As it was they lost most of what they made and what was left over was chewed up in childcare costs. It's really about incentive."
In the out-of-court settlement the chief executive agreed the second parent in split-custody cases would be entitled to the emergency maintenance allowance, paid at the same rate and with similar advantages as the Domestic Purposes Benefit.
Justice Alan McKenzie ordered the ministry to review the plaintiff's benefits, pay any arrears based on the new benefit criteria, to treat all similar cases in the same way and to review any cases as far back as December 12, 2000.
Mr Blair said the decision could put more money in the pocket of about 2000 sole parents in New Zealand.
"The number of people affected is not simple to gauge - the ministry must be given credit for admitting they had the policy wrong and for their agreement in putting it right," he said.
Rotorua Work and Income public relations adviser Julie Hill said all regional offices had been advised of the changes and as of December 23 case managers were implementing the changes.
Ms Hill was unable to confirm how many beneficiaries in the Central North Island would be affected by the new policy.
"Policy guidelines are in the process of being amended and case managers will be briefed as further information comes to hand," she said.
Three Rotorua beneficiaries have forced a law change for single parents with split custody of their children.
They have achieved it through an out-of-court settlement with the Ministry of Social Development.
On October 1, 1991, a law was introduced to stop two parents living apart but who had split-custody of their children from both receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit. One was eligible for the sole-parent benefit and all the benefits that went with it, while the other was entitled to the unemployment benefit.
Rotorua beneficiaries advocate and sole parent Paul Blair argued this was not fair as the parent receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit was entitled to earn more money when working than the parent on the dole.
Parents receiving the single parent benefit were also entitled to childcare subsidies, a non-recoverable training incentive allowance if attending a course, and didn't have to be work tested, Mr Blair said.
Rotorua sole parents Leon Broughton, Richard Amoroa and Mr Blair started legal proceedings in the High Court at Rotorua against the chief executive of the ministry more than a year ago in an attempt to get a better deal for parents who were not entitled to the sole parent benefit.
In most cases it was the father who was disadvantaged, said Mr Blair.
"We wanted to clarify the situation so it was fairer for everyone," he said. "It's not about more money. It's about the extra benefits we can get by being on the DPB. If these people had known, they might have been able to get childcare and go to work. As it was they lost most of what they made and what was left over was chewed up in childcare costs. It's really about incentive."
In the out-of-court settlement the chief executive agreed the second parent in split-custody cases would be entitled to the emergency maintenance allowance, paid at the same rate and with similar advantages as the Domestic Purposes Benefit.
Justice Alan McKenzie ordered the ministry to review the plaintiff's benefits, pay any arrears based on the new benefit criteria, to treat all similar cases in the same way and to review any cases as far back as December 12, 2000.
Mr Blair said the decision could put more money in the pocket of about 2000 sole parents in New Zealand.
"The number of people affected is not simple to gauge - the ministry must be given credit for admitting they had the policy wrong and for their agreement in putting it right," he said.
Rotorua Work and Income public relations adviser Julie Hill said all regional offices had been advised of the changes and as of December 23 case managers were implementing the changes.
Ms Hill was unable to confirm how many beneficiaries in the Central North Island would be affected by the new policy.
"Policy guidelines are in the process of being amended and case managers will be briefed as further information comes to hand," she said.
Email
Print