Issue:

6,March1999

Page:

Abstract:

Human rights act 1993

Keywords:

Fathers, children, government.

Equal Before The Law?

Not if you're a male beneficiary and care for your kids - writes Harald Breiding-Buss

When the government passed the Human Rights Act in 1993, probably everyone believed that this would remove any formal discrimination on the basis of gender. And it is true - no private company is any longer allowed to take gender (and a range of other factors) in account when interviewing applicants for a job.
The government had originally given itself a few year's time to bring it's own legislation up to scratch - but discovered along the way that this would not only be an expensive exercise, but also remove quite a few privileges that women have.
The most bizarre example of direct government discrimination is it's regulations for the Domestic Purposes Benefit and other family-related financial assistance. The DPB can only be paid to one person, even if the separating couple agreed to joint custody, with equally shared responsibilty. In practice this often means children spend one week with one parent and the next with the other. For younger children the time spent with each parent may be only a few days at a time.

If both parents happen to be not working, the government will, however, force the parents to decide who is primarily responsible for the children and who will be available for work. It doesn't matter if the parents think no such division of roles exist, only one of you can go on the DPB at $211 a week - and not be work-tested as long as your youngest child is under 14, the other will receive only the unemployment benefit ($147 a week) and must be available for full-time work. Thus, the government overrides the couples choice, which had been ascertained by a New Zealand court.
But it doesn't stop there. Both parents are eligible for an equal share of Family Support ($47 each per week for one child), which is a form of government assistance for low-income families in general. But if one of the 50/50 partners is not claiming it (because he or she has a high enough income), the other gets the full rate. In this way the government is actually discriminating between DPB recipients whose ex-partners work and those who don't.
 But the government is not discriminating between parents who have heir children 100% of the time (and have 100% of the costs) and those that have only 50% - or less. They all get the full DPB.
The Accomodation Supplement, a rent or mortgage subsidy for people with low income, is a maximum of $65 for unemployment beneficiaries, regardless of dependent children, and a minimum of $75 for a DPB recipient with at least one child.
DPB recipients are also entitled to special training allowances and programmes like COMPASS which teach workplace skills. No such luck for unemployment beneficiaries. So while in the case of 50/50 joint custody one parent can take all the time (s)he needs to bring up the children, take some training and re-enter the workforce with government assistance, the other will have to toil on the "community wage" whenever required and pay for childcare out of his own pocket on top of it.

The government also tells us which gender it would like to bring up the children. The  "woman alone" benefit is available to women over the age of 50 that have cared for dependent children for at least 15 years. This benefit exceeds the unemployment benefit by about $6 per week, and, together with an unwritten policy not to seriously work-test people over 55, amounts to an early retirement for women, and women only.
Or if you are a woman with or without children and your partner dies, you are entitled to the widow's benefit, also at $153 per week. This benefit is not work-tested for 6 months. If you are a widower, however, not only do you get $6 per week less, but you can be asked to do a community wage job the day you apply for the dole.
All this is discrimination, of course. The benefit system should not treat people on the basis of their gender. More importantly, however, this system contains a message: if you are a woman we acknowledge that it is important that you are there fulltime for your children, and we will assist you in doing so. If you choose to work part-time, we will also help you in doing that. But if you are a man, all you should contribute to your child's upbringing is money, and we'll make sure that you earn yours, no excuses accepted. A child growing up in this situation could not be told more clearly that there is no such thing as gender equality in New Zealand, that women have the choices, while men have the duties. And while government officials bash the absent father, it's own legislation speaks a different language.
In the case of joint custody, the government should make its mind up. Either it requires both parents to be available for work (perhaps only part-time), or neither of them. Either it extends its help to re-enter the workforce to both parents or neither. Eiher it gives choices to both genders or neither.