" Vague indications by Steve Maharey of a move to a universal benefit are doomed, and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Unless there is a commitment to seriously increase welfare funding, a universal benefit can never be implemented.
" The concept of a universal benefit has been around for years, but the reason it has never been implemented is the enormous cost. Raising 260,000 benefits by $40.00 a week will be an impossibility for a Minister who failed to win any additional funding in the budget. This initiative from Mr Maharey has raised expectations, but is doomed to fail. The Minister is developing a track record for doing just that..."
— Dr Muriel Newman, ACT Welfare Spokesperson

" Suggestions that a universal benefit will simplify the benefit system are wishful thinking. On the one hand the Minister says he wants a simple system; on the other he's proposing a system which requires individual tweaking for each beneficiary. That is not a recipe for simplification.
" A core benefit available to everyone must necessarily be set at the lowest level. Add-ons for individual circumstances must therefore be applied for. Every beneficiary will either want or need to apply for those add-ons - resulting in a bureaucratic labour-intensive process with huge potential for errors and inconsistencies.
" Some beneficiary groups are welcoming the proposal because they are concerned about the number of mistakes made within the current system. Yet the 'tailoring' now being proposed by the Minister will greatly increase the potential for error.
" It's a policy that sounds good in theory but won't deliver in practice. It gives the illusion of simplicity - but if you drill down it is complicated and messy. It is clear that a lot more work is required..."
— Belinda Vernon, National Party Work and Income spokesperson

" If it means simplifying the benefit system ... it can only be for the good, because at the moment the system is very complicated. That complication allows for administrative mistakes, and it allows for people to slip through the cracks. If we've got a system that's more uniform at the base level, it makes life a lot more easy for everyone..."
— Kevin Hackwell, director Wellington Downtown Community Ministry

" Labour's plan to introduce a "universal benefit" is a rehash of their 1990 policy. Labour's universal benefit is more correctly called a 'generic benefit' - a general rather than a specific benefit. The change is largely semantic. Further the semantics are wrong; this is no more than a step towards a universal benefit. There will still be groups of people called beneficiaries who are distinct from fulltime workers who are distinct from students who are distinct from housespouses who are distinct from superannuitants...
" The new generic benefit may be a small step in the direction of a genuine universal benefit. But it's only one step in five. When we really do achieve universal benefits, then there will be a change in our psychology. We will come to see benefits for what they are; not handouts but individualised public property right."
— Keith Rankin, economics columnist and advocate for a Universal Basic Income (UBI)

"A flat benefit rate is the first decent idea this government has proposed in eight months. Our preference is for zero dollars a week."
— Richard McGrath, Libertarianz Deputy Leader.