Big family looks forward to more fruit in school lunches

Taxpayers will put fruit in the lunchboxes of Mangere's Fe'ao family from today, thanks to the latest stage of the Working for Families package.

The six Fe'ao children who are not yet working, aged from 2 to 17, will bring the household $409.46 a week in family support and the new "in-work payment" which starts today.

That's an increase of $95 over the $314.65 a week entitlement up until yesterday.

Their mother, Sepi Fe'ao, says the extra money will make "a huge difference" to her children.

"They are going to have some fruit to take to school for lunch. We can't afford much fruit at the moment," she said.

"They will be able to get good clothes and shoes. I have to look for second-hand shoes for them to wear to school, and the cheaper ones get broken more easily.

"We have a computer but it's been broken down for four months since the boys finished their exams last year. Now we'll have some money to take it to fix because the other kids are coming up and they need to fix the computer."

The Fe'ao family are big winners under the Labour Government's policy because they have many children - seven in all, including one at work - and because the father, Kasi Fe'ao, works fulltime making protective paint, fulfilling the requirement of at least 30 hours' work each week to get the new in-work payment.

His gross income is $38,000 a year and his wife's part-time work brings in $60.

Under the old clawback system in force until yesterday they lost a quarter of family tax and child tax credits.

But from today the allowable income before their family support starts getting clawed back has been lifted from $20,356 to $35,000.

They will get an in-work payment of $60 a week for the first three children plus an extra $15 for every extra dependent child. They will also keep 95 per cent of the full rates of family support.

Mrs Fe'ao said that under the old system she had not yet been able to pay the school fees for her oldest son Sefita, 17, and third son Bob, 13, at De La Salle College.

"The school offers me a scholarship but ... we still have to pay $400 a year for Sefita and $700 for Bob," she said.

Sefita, who aims to start an apprenticeship next year, plays rugby, and Bob plays soccer, for the college.

Their brother Lafaele, 16, began work at the same factory as his father and earns $350. He plays rugby league for the Mangere Hawks. Their younger sisters play netball and hockey and go swimming.

But until now there has been no money left for the youngest members of the brood.

"They all want to go to sport but I can't afford for the small ones to go to rugby and netball," Mrs Fe'ao said.

Unlike better-paid families, even the teenage Fe'ao kids do not have cellphones or the internet.

"We can't afford that. But $95 a week will make a huge difference for us," their mother said.

Mr and Mrs Fe'ao will pay $8371 a year in tax and accident compensation levies in the coming year, and will get back $21,292 in family support and in-work payments - a net payment from taxpayers of $12,921 a year or $248 a week.

Benefit boost

From today:
* New in-work payment starts: $60 a week for first three children, plus $15 for every extra dependent child.
* Family support recipients can now earn up to $35,000 before their payments are reduced, up from $20,356.


... But today's benefit boost not shared by all 

The Government package that will give almost $1.6 billion more to working families from today is being criticised by beneficiary groups as including "the biggest benefit cut since 1991".

The Working for Families package will give a big income boost to families with children where at least one parent is in paid work.

But it will be partly funded by abolishing the "special benefit", a payment that can be paid on top of standard benefits to anyone with unusual costs for medical care or other needs.

From today it will be replaced with a much tighter grant called "temporary additional support". Unlike the special benefit, this support will be capped at 30 per cent of a person's main benefit plus 30 per cent of disability-related costs, and will be limited to 13 weeks.

The move will cut welfare payments by $76 million in 2006-07 and $91 million a year from then - the biggest cuts since the former National Government cut most benefits in 1991.

The 55,000 people who already receive special benefits will keep them. But an Auckland beneficiary who would be almost $50 a week worse if he had to apply for the first time after today, Billie Mayes, says the new rules would force someone like him into hospital until he dies.

Mr Mayes, 53, gets a special benefit of $173.50 a week, on top of his invalid's benefit and disability allowance, to cover heavy bills related to his arthritis, diabetes and a heart condition.

Under the new system, he would get only $123.52 a week on top of the standard benefits if he was applying for a top-up after today.

"My doctor said that, if they try that on me, I will be put into hospital permanently and I won't come out alive," he said.

Combined Beneficiaries Union president Helen Capel said the rules would mean "a virtual death sentence" for many.

"What is the Government going to do with the Billies who come along after April 1, because there will be more Billies?" she asked.

Mr Mayes worked for nine years in a sheltered workshop run by the Disabled Citizens Society, then for 10 years at Mayceys Confectionery before a fall forced him on to accident compensation (ACC) nine years ago. ACC moved him off to an invalid's benefit six years ago.

He gets the special benefit because his invalid's benefit of $210.72 a week and the maximum disability allowance of $49.48 a week fall well short of his costs.

He pays $450 a month for the slimming pill Xenical, Celebrex tablets for arthritis and other painkillers. He has physiotherapy and swimming at the Laura Fergusson Trust three times a week, has blood tests once a week, visits the doctor one to three times a month, carries a medical alarm and pays people for transport, gardening and lawnmowing.

He also has to buy special food for his diabetes.

Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope said Mr Mayes' case "shows that special benefit is currently being used to provide support for costs that may be better met through other agencies".

"However, in some limited cases there may be situations where there is a genuine need that cannot be adequately met through [temporary additional support]," he said.

"An escalation process is in place to address any similar cases should they arise."

Up and down

* Before: Special benefit. Now: Temporary additional support.
* Before: No upper limit (discretionary). Now: Capped at 30 per cent of main benefit.
* Before: Covers full housing costs. Now: Covers housing costs minus $21 a week.
* Before: Review every 6 months. Now: Limited to 3 months.
* Before: Lump sums available. Now: No lump sums.