Lately, a lot of people have been calling Social Development Minister Paula Bennett a beneficiary basher. Beneficiary bashing involves anything that sours public perceptions of beneficiaries, thereby justifying benefit cuts, limitations and restrictions. 
 
Take, for instance, the announcement made last week that more than 21,000 people had their benefits cut for travelling overseas since July last year. Out of those figures, more than 1,750 people had their benefit suspended for multiple overseas trips, and 1,555 who had travelled twice since last July.
 
Whether it is due to political imperatives, or genuine ignorance, some people have dismissed this announcement as simple beneficiary bashing: a cheap publicity stunt to portray beneficiaries as freeloaders.
 
The Labour Party’s welfare spokeswoman Sue Moroney described this travel as justified, as it was likely many had "given up on the local job market" and headed overseas for better opportunities. Moroney also argued that tickets for travel overseas were often gifts from friends or family.
 
Media commentator Martyn Bradbury went further, arguing the policy was venal, a hate-fest, and was racist because many beneficiaries who travel overseas are Pacific Islanders.
 
With responses such as these, one would imagine beneficiaries are being detained at the border. Probably by a gang of beneficiary bashers who take their job literally. But that is not the case.
 
Travel is still permissible on compassionate or health grounds for all beneficiaries, including job seekers. Those who do not have job-seeking obligations can travel up to 28 days a year while still receiving a benefit.
 
Benefits are only cut immediately when beneficiaries fail to inform Work and Income they are travelling.
 
No beneficiary is forced to stay in this county against their will, they can travel wherever they like, for as long as they like. They even have the option of extending their job hunt overseas, if they believe it is in their best interests.
 
But like every other New Zealand citizen, they do have to make decisions, and must face the opportunity costs of their decisions.
 
Just as a worker cannot expect their employer to grant them leave they have not earned, it is unreasonable for a beneficiary to expect to travel while still receiving a regular income at the taxpayers’ expense.
 
And if travel was indeed given as a gift, it is a rather inconsiderate gift. Unless the beneficiary can financially sustain themselves during and after that trip, it is like buying someone a car when they cannot afford petrol.
 
If anyone is (metaphorically) punching beneficiaries in the face, it is those arguing beneficiaries should have rights above and beyond the normal citizen.
 
Such demands inevitably breed animosity as taxpayers realise their dollars are ending up on white, sandy beaches while they’re still stuck in the office.