OPINION: As the tremors of Covid-19 reverberate through our communities, many workers who find themselves recently laid off are in for an extra shock when they realise they will be penalised for being "married" when it comes to applying for a benefit.

This out-of-date approach to relationships will come as a surprise to many who haven't had to access our social welfare services before.

These newly unemployed folk will be even more surprised to discover that the Ministry of Social Development can define a "marriage-like" relationship to be when a couple have only been together for six weeks or have just begun a sexual relationship.

That such antiquated rules still remain within a modern-day welfare system is an embarrassment to our policy-makers and needs to be reversed immediately.

READ MORE:

* Rules on partnership visas have been based on flawed thinking

* Benefit sanction: Māori penalised, children going hungry, advocates say

* Mothers kept single by Government rules about relationships for beneficiaries

I am a member of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) which has addressed this problem. We also raised the issue that workers, although paying their tax every week, are not entitled to the unemployed (Job Seeker) benefit if their partner or spouse is still in paid employment.

UNSPLASH With Covid-19 set to wreak havoc on many aspects of our communities, we do not need to be exposing families to draconian and arbitrary rules that will further limit the capacity of families to ride through this uncertain time.

These days, it's rare not to have both partners in a family relationship working - many have to just to make ends meet - but at the moment, if one partner is laid off, they are denied a benefit if their partner is earning.

This rule assumes an outdated view that one income is enough to support a family. In practice, one income is rarely enough, especially if there are children.

The MSD relationship rules are so broad that even people who do not share resources are treated as though they do. This can mean that people have to make choices not to enter relationships because they will lose money, or that they enter relationships and take the risk being liable for fraud.

The rules also mean that welfare case managers need to ask intrusive and personal questions to determine if people are in relationships.

Essentially these rules force people into further unnecessary stress at a time when they need to plan how to find new forms of income, or get their affairs in order regarding their housing and health needs.

With Covid-19 set to wreak havoc on many aspects of our communities, we do not need to be exposing families to draconian and arbitrary rules that will further limit the capacity of families to ride through this uncertain time.

I would reiterate the recommendations that were made by the WEAG, which are to lift the married person benefit rate to twice the single rate and allow for a six-month period after people move in together as a couple, before a relationship is deemed to exist for the purposes of determining benefit eligibility. Just as WEAG advocated for all workers, whether in a relationship or not, to be eligible for the benefit for six months after losing their job through redundancy or in other ways.

But ideally, I would like to see all benefits given to people on an individual basis, regardless of their relationship status.

As we look to reshape our economy in the coming months, fairness, kindness and our society's wellbeing must sit at the centre of that reshaping. A good start would be fixing the out-of-date relationship rules in our welfare system.

Robert Reid is president of First Union.