web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

Out of her depth II

Written By: - Date published: 12:45 pm, April 15th, 2009 - 29 comments
Categories: benefits, national/act government - Tags: , , ,

As if any more evidence was needed that National’s Paula Bennett is completely out of her depth as Minister of Social Development, it appears Work and Income is turning away the hungry while Paula can’t even get her lines straight:

Despite a high court ruling in 2002 instructing WINZ to tell beneficiaries what their entitlements are (Ruka v WINZ), they’ve decided to return to the bad old days of the 1990s when they would tell hungry Kiwis to bugger off and find a food bank to avoid paying them out their lawful entitlements and generally do whatever it took to stop people getting the help they were legally entitled to. Including creating and running on policy that was in breach of the law.

The reason Paula Bennett doesn’t appear to have a clue is because she was never meant to. She’s just that nice centrist-looking lady who smiles on the TV while National’s out the back ripping the guts out of our welfare system.

This is an area Labour failed miserably in during their last time in government. Let’s hope they can get their act together now.

Update: Surprise, surprise, it appears National’s election promise to lift the allowable income for beneficiaries won’t be funded in this year’s Budget and there’s no commitment as to when it will be.

29 comments on “Out of her depth II”

  1. Brett Dale 1

    Just out of interest, out of all the kiwis who are on the benefit have gone to Winz, how many were told to ‘BUGGER OFF”, do you have a number?????? Do you have names of these people, or the names of the winz officers?

    Or are you lying again?

    • John 1.1

      Agreed. It appears that this was simply a case of a WINZ staffer not fully understanding the avenues that these people could take. I assume that this problem has been identified, and that no more stories like this will arise. Simple mistake, which is now being used to score political points.

  2. Bill 2

    To be fair Tane, beneficiaries seeking food grants were being pawned off to food banks under the last government too.

    There is also an annual cash limit on food grants. ( Says WINZ) What they don’t tell you, and what staff seem to be unaware of is that the limit doesn’t apply if the need is desperate enough. Lack of food is desperate. No limit applies. Got to argue the case though, and that’s something many on the benefit are not good at doing.

    edit. Worth adding that the financial situation of beneficiaries got much, much worse when Labour abolished Special Ben and replaced it with TAS. TAS is wholly inadequate and results in more applications for food grants due to financial shortcomings.

    • George Darroch 2.1

      It’s fuckin disgusting that any person has to beg to survive.

      Labour members should be ashamed that for 9 years Labour deliberately chose not to do anything about it – and even fought (and lost) in the courts to keep the Richardson system as unadulterated as it was in 1991.

      I know someone on the unemployment benefit, getting $148 per week, and they have to eat out of skip bins to survive.

      Decent society? Labour didn’t care, still doesn’t care, and I won’t believe they care til they actually legislate. Phil Goff can mouth all the platitudes in the world, but it won’t make a difference until they’re actually determined to do something.

  3. vinsin 3

    Yes it’s nothing new that Winz prides itself on fobbing off its clients to keep their budgets down. I believe the cash limit on a food grant is $200 per year for anyone without children and around $400 for those with children; however getting a food grant has become harder and harder to get as normally the caseworker will look for any way to reject your application – it’s kind of their job.

  4. BeShakey 4

    “…it’s kind of their job”

    Only if it’d their job to break the law. As the post noted, the high court has ruled that WINZ should facilitate access to peoples entitlements. Labour directed WINZ to comply with the court ruling, and as far as I’m aware they did an OK job of this (noting there will always be isolated failings). Labours problem was that they then changed the entitlements, but that doesn’t let the Nats off the hook for screwing over beneficiaries the way Labour did and their own way.

    Pity the house is in recess, it would have been interesting to see King take Bennett on over this one.

    • vinsin 4.1

      It may be Winz’s job to “facilitate access to peoples entitlements” but it’s the case worker’s job to toe the line with whatever management says. If management says to keep costs down by giving clients the run around then that’s what they do.

      • George Darroch 4.1.1

        They do this, because Labour didn’t care, and the 1990s culture of denial remained entrenched.

  5. big bruv 5

    Great news, I want WINZ fobbing off dole bludgers, if they cannot budget then that is their own tough luck.

  6. Ag 6

    I went to school with her.

    Thick as two short planks, she is.

  7. Rex Widerstrom 7

    Meh, DSW (as was then) were doing this when I was a social worker back in the early 80s and based on what I’ve heard from every beneficiary I’ve known since they’ve kept it up under every government. Sure some governments (like National with Shipley as Welfare Minister) cheered them on while others (like the Labour government which followed them) made more disapproving noises.

    But DSW/WINZ staff know that no matter who’s in power the prevailing sentiment is that these people are a bunch of leeches and if it was palatable electorally they’d be cut adrift. But since it’s not, they’re to be given barely subsistence.

    Sure individual case officers have broken the mould but then (as mine was) they’re “transferred to other duties” faster than you can say “we’re not here to help”.

    And of course there are (as big bruv so aptly demonstrates above) no deserving cases. None that are trying their damnedest to get off the benefit and thus deserve a bit of a nudge forward while the able-bodied smelly layabout in the corner needs a kick in the pants. No, they’re all the same, and thus deserving of an equal helping of contempt and frustration when they crawl in to ask for something.

    But it’s the second part of the post that really captured my attention… it’s going to cost $17 million? Assuming a dollar-for-dollar abatement regime over $80 that means 17 million divided by $20 divided by (as an arbitrary figure) 40 weeks gives a figure of just over 20,000 beneficiaries affected. In reality of course there’ll be people going onto and coming off work and those on variable incomes being abated some months and not others.

    [It would have been helpful if the Herald journo had stuck up their hand and asked “How many people does this affect?” but, well…]

    So I wonder if anyone has modelled the likely numbers of people who’d find work if the regime were altered. Using the figures above and assuming an average total burden per beneficiary (benefit, accommodation supplement etc) of $400 then if they all got jobs that’s an $8.5 million saving in WINZ’s budget alone, not taking into account addition al taxes etc. And not to mention the secondary savings in better health etc.

    Surely they’re not just making decisions based on gross cost? Or does the $17 million take these factors into account?

    Okay I’ve now come to realise the Herald’s story tells us nothing of any use. As you were.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1

      Okay I’ve now come to realise the Herald’s story tells us nothing of any use.

      You’re surprised by this?

  8. I would have thought the government would be keen as to get people to work as much as possible. Obviously you don’t want to still be dishing out benefits to people with full-time jobs, but one would have thought that the government ends up better off (with more tax paid) the more someone works.

    Same reason why I always thought it was stupid that students could only earn $130 a week without it affecting their student allowance.

  9. BeShakey 9

    “It may be Winz’s job to “facilitate access to peoples entitlements’ but it’s the case worker’s job to toe the line with whatever management says. If management says to keep costs down by giving clients the run around then that’s what they do.”

    So you support case workers breaking the law if someone in management tells them to? No problems with a case working knowingly giving their bosses mate a benefit they aren’t entitled to, on the bosses orders? Or is it only when beneficiaries are being deprived of their entitlements that ‘only following orders’ is acceptable.

    • vinsin 9.1

      “So you support case workers breaking the law if someone in management tells them to? No problems with a case working knowingly giving their bosses mate a benefit they aren’t entitled to, on the bosses orders? Or is it only when beneficiaries are being deprived of their entitlements that ‘only following orders’ is acceptable.”

      No, all i was saying was that it’s tough to be on a benefit and get all the money or assistance that you’re entitled to, this is because case workers have superiors they’re accountable to. Should everyone get everything they’re are entitled to? Yes. Does it happen? No. Why don’t they? Because of the reasons I’ve mentioned before.

      To be honest I think Winz has been fucked for many years and all that really happens is a new government repackages and re-brands things with the overall system of Winz still being a sick, psychotic, almost schizophrenic beast that no one really wants to tame.

  10. Tigger 10

    Wow, I’m out of touch – when did CAB start becoming a foodbank?

  11. marco 11

    It is Work and Income policy to inform clients of all their entitlements. The phrase they use is “Full and Correct Entitlement”.
    This is drummed into every case manager during training. Case Managers should also assess Temporary Additional Support at each Emergency Grant (Special Needs Grant and Advance) application.
    The limit for food for a single person is $200 per six months (the allowance increased just before the election). To qualify for an emergency grant the client has to prove that it is just that….an emergency.
    If a client goes over their allowance before the end of the six month period then they are refferred to a food bank, unless the Service Centre Manager approves an over allowance (which comes out of their next six month allotment).
    If a client is unhappy with the decision they can apply in writing for a Review of Decision. Every Review of Decision form recieved must be investigated and responeded to via the regional office. This means if you genuinely believe that you have been hard done by the case manager and the service centre manager must explain to regional office how they reached their decision.

    It is not and hopefully never will be Work and Income policy to not explain entitlements and keep budgets down. To say otherwise is a lie.

    • Felix 11.1

      Not official policy of course but I’ve talked to former staff who say they were directed to do exactly that, regularly.

      • Fraggle 11.1.1

        Not sure why the staff would be directed not to pay an emergency Special Needs Grant in recent times, it is not a limited bucket of money it comes from. The Nat Govt of the 90s set the bar very high on food SNG.

        Marco is bang on in explaining the system.

        There is quite a bit of verification that is required to access a SNG to establish if a situation is an emergency. If an emergency situation can not be established then a manager has discretion to approve. A case worker is administering legislation and they can not make decisions or approve assistance that is outside the scope of the Social Security Act.

        • Felix 11.1.1.1

          The staff I former staff I referred to were working there in the late 90s.

        • vinsin 11.1.1.2

          Yes this is one of the reasons why people don’t get their full entitlement. The interpretation of “emergency” and “discretion.” The fact is that a case worker can mistake an emergency situation as something that was entirely foreseeable, ie large phone bills, power bills, etc.

          If the client was left broke because of paying for bills that they considered to be essential and were asking for a SNG, a case worker could (and I have actually experienced this myself as a student) use their discretion to decline the request because a) telecommunications are a “luxury” and not considered essential costs and, b) the client did not make enough effort to budget for a large bill. It doesn’t matter that the client may be entitled to a grant, and in their mind were in an emergency situation, what matters is the interpretation of emergency and the discretionary attitude of the case worker.

          Of course, one can appeal any ruling; however, most appeals take at least two weeks to be dealt with – they must be dealt with by six weeks – and so by the time one gets to have their say, the emergency situation is no longer an emergency, and the appeal is moot.

        • Bill 11.1.1.3

          “Marco is bang on in explaining the system.”

          Not quite. If you read my previous comment in relation to the supposed limit on SNG for food you’ll see that Macro missed a crucial detail in his explanation. By Macro’s explanation, WINZ can be justified in sending a client to a food bank. But the very fact that they would consider such a move is proof that the situation is serious and immediate….which means that a SNG for food should be issued.

          It’s that simple.

          As for appeals and reviews, (Macro’s comment below) it’s true that such processes take a long time in most instances. But a review of a declined SNG for food must be undertaken on the same day as the application was made.

          Here’s the thing. You have to know these things and (crucially) be reasonably articulate in arguing the point. Why? Because there is a pervasive culture of obstructionism in an institution designed as a safety net.

          An accepted but unacceptable state of affairs?

          BTW. All this talk of ‘breaking the law’….there is the legislation and then there is the policy that WINZ operates from which is an interpretation of the legislation. Obviously, different interpretations are possible. Policy can be and has been wrong.

      • marco 11.1.2

        If they were directed to do that then it would be perfectly within their rights to contact their PSA rep and make a complaint. If they were not PSA members then there are other channels to take complaints within the public service. No public servant should be directed by a superior to essentially break the law.

        • Fraggle 11.1.2.1

          “No public servant should be directed by a superior to essentially break the law.”

          Totally agree. However, very few civil servants actually read the Act they operate under and rely on superiors directing them.

          As an aside the legislation on welfare should have been rewritten ages ago. It is a total mess and quite confusing for case workers and WINZ clients.

  12. Maynard J 12

    I suspect that in some cases, people don’t qualify under whatever constitutes an ‘emergency’ – so they get sent to food banks. Bennett could have said that, if she wanted something smart to say. “people fall through the cracks” “Well they don’t fall through the cracks” poor.

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Waihopai – years on, still the same
    On 24 January, I attended the Waihopai Base protest in my electorate.  It was attended by a great range of people who are all concerned about the direction our country is heading in.  Thank you to all of those who… ...
    GreensBy Steffan Browning MP
    3 hours ago
  • Greens call for ring-fencing of state home proceeds
    The Government must ring-fence the proceeds of any state home sales and spend every dollar raised on more Government-built homes in order to address the housing crisis, the Green Party says.Prime Minister John Key has indicated that his first major… ...
    GreensBy Kevin Hague MP
    1 day ago
  • English breaks his $6000 wages promise
    Just one month into the new year Bill English has already rowed back on his election promise of real wage rises for New Zealanders, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. “During the election campaign National promised Kiwis that the average… ...
    6 days ago
  • National fails to produce evidence justifying attack on RMA
    The National Government is misusing evidence provided in the Motu report on planning rules to justify gutting the environmental protections secured by the Resource Management Act (RMA), says the Green Party today. The Motu group's research into the impacts of… ...
    GreensBy Julie Anne Genter MP
    6 days ago
  • National fails to produce evidence justifying attack on RMA
    The National Government is misusing evidence provided in the Motu report on planning rules to justify gutting the environmental protections secured by the Resource Management Act (RMA), says the Green Party today. The Motu group's research into the impacts of… ...
    GreensBy Julie Anne Genter MP
    6 days ago
  • RMA changes won’t knock a dollar off the cost of a new home
    The Government’s proposed changes to the RMA won’t increase the number of affordable homes or knock a dollar off the cost of building a new house, Labour Leader Andrew Little says.  “Tinkering with the RMA will not solve National’s housing… ...
    1 week ago
  • What is the real ‘price of the club’?
    What price is too high to join a club?  According to the current the New Zealand Prime Minister, the lives of young Kiwi men and women are a part of the package. In his latest BBC interview, John Key fails… ...
    GreensBy Kennedy Graham MP
    1 week ago
  • DOC debacle means hundreds may have missed out on fishing licences
    Hundreds of families and recreational fishers may have had their holidays spoiled by missing out on their fishing licences, with Conservation Minister Maggie Barry preferring instead to focus on more high profile portfolio priorities over the summer break, Labour’s Conservation… ...
    1 week ago
  • Effective action needed against pirate fishing boats
    New Zealand’s failure to detain pirate shipping vessels poaching endangered species in our region is simply not good enough, Labour’s Defence spokesperson Phil Goff says. “We send New Zealand naval vessels to the Arabian Gulf to board pirate ships there… ...
    1 week ago
  • Housing affordability crisis gets worse under National
    News that Auckland’s housing is now among the 10 most unaffordable in the world confirms the Government’s housing policy has failed, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “After six years in power, National’s housing policies have not fixed the housing… ...
    1 week ago
  • Rheumatic fever rates continue to soar despite millions spent on prevention...
    The Government’s $65 million spend on rheumatic fever prevention has made little impact on the alarmingly high rate of the disease among young New Zealanders, Labour’s Health spokesperson Annette King says. “Latest figures from ESR show there were 235 notified… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Speech to the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Quito, Ecuador
    I was honoured to speak to the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, calling for cooperation and action on climate change. You can read my speech below. Greetings from New Zealand in our first language – kia ora nga mihi nui… ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Government wipes off $5 billion in tax debt
    Since coming to office, the National Government has written off $5 billion* in tax debt owed by more than a million, Labour MP Stuart Nash says. "There are two sides to the New Zealand economy under the National government: the… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour adds its condemnation of Paris attack
    The Labour Party adds its voice to the international condemnation of today’s shocking attack on freedom of speech in Paris, Leader Andrew Little says. “The attack on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper is an assault on democracy and freedom of expression.… ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Petrol retailers and importers must pass on savings
    New Zealand’s petrol retailers and importers must start passing on savings to Kiwis motorists following the dramatic drop in the price of crude oil, Labour’s Energy Spokesman Stuart Nash says. “It is great news for Kiwi drivers that the price… ...
    3 weeks ago

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere