By Kate Chapman of NZPA

Wellington, May 26 NZPA - It would be cheaper to leave someone on the benefit if they've already been on it for 10 years than to push them into work, politicians were told today.

Parliament's social services select committee today heard submissions on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill -- they were overwhelmingly against the bill which seeks to focus the welfare system on work.

The Child Poverty Action Group said the Government has shown a "relentless focus" on getting beneficiaries into work with no consideration of children.

Under the bill sole parents whose oldest child was six, and sickness beneficiaries, would be work-tested and required to look for part-time work.

There would also be stricter eligibility criteria for the invalids benefit, changes to childcare assistance thresholds for high income earners and sanctions for those who did not comply with the requirements.

Donna Wynd, of the Child Poverty Action Group, said training and education were important for helping people move on the benefit successfully and the bill "cuts off" education as an option for single parents.

"If you're uncertain about the efficacy of this policy (education) perhaps you could talk to the minister (Paula Bennett)," Ms Wynd told the committee.

It was relatively easy to get beneficiaries into work but they would not necessarily keep the job because of problems with childcare, transport and health, she said.

Beneficiaries need to move into stable, well paid work but usually ended up in low paid, casual, temporary work which was not a pathway out of poverty.

Evidence suggested people were not able to use such work as a stepping stone to further work.

Ms Wynd, also a Green Party member, said long-term beneficiaries were a "unique animal".

"For someone that's been on a benefit for 10 years it might just be cheaper to leave them there," she said.

Other submitters had similar concerns.

Alan Johnson, of the Salvation Army's social policy and parliamentary unit, said the bill was pushing people into jobs that did not exist and needed greater flexibility.

Work should be the expectation of everyone who is capable of working but not everyone was, he said.

There were parents on the "fringe of benefits" who were working really hard, often to the detriment of their children.

Mr Johnson said the bill was "like a mob brawl -- as long as most people think it is okay it is worth doing".

Leonie Morris from the Auckland Women's Centre said there were "serious structural barriers" preventing women on the dependent persons benefit having work.

Those included the unemployment rate, low qualifications, finding childcare, finding flexible work, the lasting effects of domestic violence and issues with transport.

Many of the women wanted to work but could not and this bill penalised them, Ms Morris said.

Therese Luxton, of the Child Advocacy Group, said the Government should not underestimate the importance of parents being at home before, during and after their children were at school.

Truancy officers had found kids skipping school to stay home and babysit younger siblings or sick, elderly relatives while parents were at work, Ms Luxton said.

The jobs available to people coming off benefits often had unsuitable hours for parents.

The disabled community was also concerned about the negative impacts of the bill.

Dr Huhana Hickey, of Auckland Disability Law, said doctors were general practitioners and were not qualified to say whether someone was fit for work and without dedicated case managers there was not the skill base to assess individuals.

It was not reasonable to expect someone to work if their disability meant the did not have the resources to get to the job, or if they were dealing with a new impairment and were expected to attend job interviews at the same time.