David Seymour Says Stop Paying People Not to Work. What Has the Government Actually Done?

Webfit News | 28 September 2026

ACT leader David Seymour has reignited the debate over welfare and employment with a campaign video arguing that New Zealand needs to stop paying people not to work.

The message is direct. But it raises questions about how the welfare system actually operates, what the coalition Government has already changed, and whether stricter benefit rules are translating into sustainable employment.

Seymour's statement also comes with an important political context: ACT is not an opposition party. It is part of the governing coalition and has participated in decisions affecting welfare policy.

That makes the Government's record relevant to examining the message.

1. What exactly is Seymour saying?

In a video published on his Facebook page, Seymour delivers the message:

"If we want people to work, we need to stop paying them not to work."

The statement presents welfare payments as a potential disincentive to employment.

The underlying argument is that financial assistance should not make remaining outside employment more attractive than working.

However, the statement does not distinguish between different categories of benefit recipients.

The distinction matters because receiving a benefit is not, by itself, evidence that someone is refusing employment.

2. What does New Zealand's welfare system actually require?

New Zealand's Jobseeker Support system already includes employment-related obligations.

Work and Income distinguishes between recipients who can work full-time, those who can work part-time and those who need to prepare for employment because of health conditions or disabilities.

Recipients may be required to attend interviews, participate in employment programmes and accept suitable work.

The system therefore does not simply provide unrestricted payments to everyone who is unemployed.

The relevant policy question is whether the existing obligations are appropriate, effectively enforced and successful in helping people enter employment.

3. What has the coalition Government already done?

Since taking office, the National-ACT-New Zealand First coalition has introduced several changes intended to strengthen welfare obligations.

The Government began its welfare reset in February 2024.

Further changes were developed during 2024 and incorporated into the Social Security Amendment Act 2025.

From October 2025, the sanctions framework expanded to include additional activities such as reporting job searches and participating in employment-related training.

These changes demonstrate that the coalition has already acted on its stated objective of increasing employment obligations.

The remaining question is what further changes Seymour is proposing and how their effects would differ from those of the existing system.

4. What do the employment figures show?

The Ministry of Social Development's figures provide a more detailed picture of the welfare system.

Key figures:

• Approximately 216,300 people were receiving Jobseeker Support in March 2026.
• 86,544 people exited a main benefit into work during the year ending June 2026.
• This represented an increase of 5,772 compared with the previous year.

Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston described the increase as encouraging.

However, these figures measure movements from benefits into employment.

They do not, by themselves, establish how many people remained employed long-term or how much of the change resulted from specific welfare policies.

What the figures can and cannot tell us

The figures provide evidence of employment transitions, but they cannot establish a single explanation for every person's circumstances.

5. Are benefit recipients refusing to work?

One important distinction in the debate is between receiving a benefit and failing to comply with employment obligations.

Work and Income reported in September 2025 that more than 98 per cent of its clients were meeting their obligations under the traffic light system.

That figure does not establish that every recipient was actively seeking full-time work. Obligations differ according to individual circumstances.

It does, however, challenge any interpretation that widespread non-compliance can simply be assumed.

Three different situations need to be considered:

• A person who is capable of working but does not meet applicable employment obligations without good reason.
• A person actively seeking employment but unable to secure a suitable position.
• A person whose health, disability or other recognised circumstances limit their ability to work.

These situations involve different barriers and different policy responses.

A sanction may address non-compliance. It cannot, on its own, create a job vacancy, provide necessary medical treatment or remove every barrier to employment.

6. Can tougher benefit rules create more jobs?

The Government's approach places greater emphasis on employment obligations, sanctions and moving recipients into work.

Its argument is that clear expectations and consequences encourage participation in the labour market.

That argument raises a separate question: what happens when a person is willing to work but cannot find suitable employment?

Stronger obligations and employment assistance are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Their effectiveness depends on the circumstances of recipients and the opportunities available to them.

The distinction is important when assessing whether a policy increases employment or primarily changes the conditions under which financial assistance is provided.

7. Unemployment has risen during the coalition's term

Official labour-market figures add another dimension to Seymour's argument.

New Zealand's unemployment rate reached 5.6 per cent in the June 2026 quarter, with approximately 171,000 people unemployed.

The unemployment rate was 4.7 per cent in June 2024.

This does not establish that the coalition's welfare policies caused unemployment to rise.

Employment levels, economic conditions and labour-force participation all affect the unemployment rate.

Nevertheless, the figures establish that unemployment has increased during the period in which the Government has strengthened benefit obligations.

The Reserve Bank's September 2026 Monetary Policy Statement provides further context.

It reported that employment growth had been insufficient to absorb growth in the labour supply.

It also identified a historically low rate of unemployed people moving into employment as a contributor to longer periods of unemployment.

That evidence raises a question about the limits of welfare policy.

If employment opportunities are insufficient, changing benefit conditions alone cannot ensure that everyone seeking work finds a job.

8. ACT has proposed going further than the coalition

Seymour's message is not simply a restatement of existing government policy.

ACT has proposed additional welfare changes that extend beyond the reforms already implemented.

At its June 2026 campaign launch, the party renewed proposals concerning electronic money management and health-related benefit assessments.

Seymour acknowledged in his June campaign speech that ACT's earlier proposals had been only partly implemented under the coalition.

He specifically identified the difference between ACT's preferred electronic money management policy and the more limited arrangements introduced by the Government.

This distinction is important.

ACT has participated in implementing welfare reforms, but the party is campaigning for additional measures that have not been fully adopted by its coalition partners.

The question for the election is therefore not whether the Government has taken action on welfare. It has.

The question is what further changes ACT wants, how they would operate and what evidence supports their expected outcomes.

9. Five questions arising from Seymour's message

The video provides an opportunity to examine the relationship between political messaging and policy outcomes.

1. What additional problem would the proposed restrictions address?

The Government has already strengthened obligations and sanctions. Evidence about remaining non-compliance would help establish the scope of any further measures.

2. How would success be measured?

Would the measure be fewer benefit recipients, more people entering employment, or more people remaining in sustainable work?

3. What happens when suitable jobs are unavailable?

The Reserve Bank has identified weak job-finding rates. Further policy detail could explain how ACT would address labour-market conditions alongside benefit obligations.

4. How would people with health conditions be protected?

Additional assessments would need to distinguish between people capable of employment and those facing genuine limitations.

5. What evidence shows the proposed measures would improve outcomes?

Employment, income, hardship and administrative costs would all be relevant to assessing the effects of further restrictions.

10. The distinction between welfare policy and economic policy

The wider debate involves two related but separate objectives.

The first is ensuring that people receiving public assistance meet the obligations appropriate to their circumstances.

The second is ensuring that people who want to work have access to suitable employment.

Both objectives feature in the coalition's stated approach.

However, they require different policy instruments.

A person may meet every employment obligation and still remain unemployed.

Equally, the existence of suitable employment does not eliminate the need to enforce applicable obligations.

Assessing welfare reform therefore requires evidence about both individual behaviour and the wider labour market.

What the debate means for the election

Seymour's message places personal responsibility and welfare conditions at the centre of ACT's election campaign.

The party argues that stronger expectations and additional restrictions would encourage employment and ensure taxpayer support is used appropriately.

The coalition's record shows that several changes have already been implemented, including stronger enforcement, a traffic light system and expanded sanctions.

Government figures also show an increase in people moving from benefits into work.

At the same time, unemployment has risen, and the Reserve Bank has identified continuing difficulties for unemployed people seeking employment.

These findings do not establish that the Government's welfare reforms have succeeded or failed overall. They show why multiple measures are needed to assess their effects.

The distinction between people who fail to meet applicable obligations and people who cannot secure suitable employment remains central to the debate.

As the election approaches, ACT's proposals can be examined against the Government's existing reforms, the latest employment data and the practical circumstances of people receiving assistance.

Seymour has set out his argument for further welfare reform. The remaining questions concern which changes would be introduced, who would be affected and what measurable employment outcomes they would produce.

Webfit News | Independent reporting on the policies and issues shaping New Zealand's 2026 general election.