Beneficiary contraceptive scheme comes to an end

A scheme to fund free long term contraceptives for beneficiaries and their daughters ends on Monday.

The previous government set aside almost a $1 million for the scheme over six years, but Work and Income spent just $200,000 of that.

The grant, which included IUDs, injections and implants, was labelled an insult and intrusive.

Former Green MP Sue Bradford was a vocal critic of the grant when it was announced in 2012.

She says while contraception should be free, the grant was tied to the benefit system and was part of a wider agenda by the National government to discourage women on a benefit from having babies.

"We simply didn't believe that the state should play a role in trying to persuade women and their daughters to take long term contraception and to do that through Work and Income where so much of what Work and Income is on about is access to benefits. When you are dependent on the state that's your whole survival."

There is no way of knowing if Work and Income case officers exerted pressure on women to take up the offer, she says.

Family Planning, which was responsible for fitting the devices, said they never saw any evidence of pressure being applied.

Its chief executive, Jackie Edmond, says they also had concerns about the scheme being promoted at Work and Income offices.

"Really you'd be much better to target access to all women in terms of access to these contraceptives - IUDs and implants - rather than just target a specific group to subsidise their visit."

The red tape was a problem, says Jackie.

"It was just a little bit cumbersome, so we never saw very high numbers of women through the scheme. As I said the intentions were pretty good, because we know cost is a barrier to women. It wasn't very smooth, lets say."

Just 1133 grants were paid out, in stark comparison to the 16,000 grants the previous government budgeted for.

National's spokesperson for women, Paula Bennett, was the architect of the scheme. She is disappointed it's been scrapped.

"It's not like you have to pay if people don't take it up, it's user demand driven. I brought it in because there were woman that were not getting access to contraception because of the additional costs involved. And I just thinking removing those extra costs for them is about free choice and empowers them. So I think it's a real shame," says Paula.

Jackie agress cost was a barrier and says there was high demand for family planning's low-cost services.

"The implant of course now is free, but putting it in can be expensive because its a long appointment, so it may cost $100 to $150 even $200 in some places and an IUD is similar."

The current government says it's not appropriate for Work and Income to manage the grant, and any decision on contraception is a woman's personal decision in consultation with their doctor.

It has allocated $17.5m this year to health services to improve access to contraceptives for women on low incomes

Pharmac also funds three long term contraceptives.

You may also like....

4 comments

Oh dear again

Posted on 08-08-2018 12:35 | By Kancho

Oh Sue. Surely anyone on a benefit of child bearing age would be grateful for help with the added cost of contraception. Ok so it needs sorting out red tape wise and it's not compulsory so why so indignant Sue. I doubt any case worker would push the issue but surely they would provide the information that the money was available to help. I think it's a great idea and should be continuing albeit with streamlining a y red tape. So Sue help make it work better for beneficiaries and get off your high horse.


Short term spend vs long term spend?

Posted on 08-08-2018 13:18 | By Lvdw

So instead of spending $1M on VOLUNTARY contraception methods for beneficiaries, we remove it and now spend how many millions on the children that are produced because people cannot be bothered to use contraception, and having more babies in essence means more money at the end of the day, does it not?


Easy to understand ...

Posted on 08-08-2018 13:22 | By Maryfaith

.....why there was such a small uptake on this offer. The more kids they can churn out - the more taxpayers money goes into their pockets.


YES, have to agree with you, Maryfaith

Posted on 09-08-2018 00:03 | By The Caveman

Each kid means MORE benefit money, AND other extras as well - bigger State House, etc, etc. (OH and where are the "dads"" - ah that's right - don't have to be named, so don't pay child support, so the TAXPAYERS get s_________d again & again !!


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.