Poverty Watch 14

27 comments on “Poverty Watch 14 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. AsleepWhileWalking 1

   1 December 2012 at 11:55 am

   Has someone pointed out to Bennett that one reason for poverty is right under her nose – that is Work and Income failing to assess clients and provide them with their full and complete entitlement under the Social Securities Act?

   Sounds like this is a strong contributing factor in poverty, particularly in Sam’s case. Why was he missing out on the $100 extra each week that he was recently found to be entitled to receive? How long had this been going on and how many thousands of dollars did it amount to?

   Most importantly how many others who live in “poverty” are in the same situation and being short changed by the government?
   • Mary 1.1

     1 December 2012 at 7:57 pm

     Yes, people are underpaid as a matter of course. But this doesn’t mean that if people did in fact receive their full entitlement that we can say everything would be fixed because if that were the case then the logical conclusion would be that basic benefits are adequate and that’s simply wrong. It’s a bit more complex than that. Basic benefit rates haven’t increased in real terms since the cuts in 1991, and the shift towards a greater reliance on the add-on extra benefits just to get by have changed the landscape considerably. People missing out on what they’re entitled to is one problem, but the adequacy of basic benefit rates including the way the benefit system in general is now structured is a separate issue.
     • McFlock 1.1.1

       1 December 2012 at 8:01 pm

       agreed entirely
2. prism 2

   1 December 2012 at 12:27 pm

   Report on conversation of Sam Kuha with Poorer Benefit. (Incidentally he exemplifies the fighting spirit that took the Maori Battalion to war, demanding recognition of worth as people with rights that should be respected.)

   Regarding his being refused a food grant, she told him policies were not always carried out on the ground as written.

   This is actually true and has been long observed and noted in social policy studies. Therefore the desire to deliver what has been agreed by government should lead immediately to an advocate who can be appealed to SEPARATE from Winz. It shouldn’t be just shrugged off apologetically or not, by the Minister. She has admitted the truth, that she can’t ensure that departmental management will ensure that people are treated fairly and correctly.

   If not remedied by NACTs I am sure that Labour will act immediately when in power to fill this gap in their own past adminstration.
3. David H 3

   1 December 2012 at 12:53 pm

   And then there was this little gem that was quickly hidden.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8021687/Child-abuse-funds-blown-on-hype

   “Paula Bennett’s action plan to rescue vulnerable children has been dismissed as “an exercise in window dressing” with almost $400,000 spent on consultants. ”

   Could this be the final screw up that she allowed to get away with? And then you can tell her to ‘Zip’
   it!

   But then again
   • xtasy 3.1

     1 December 2012 at 3:49 pm

     Monies spent for the “window dressing” exercise – under the Minister of “bursting zips” (I wonder how many of her dresses have “burst” at the seams, given the evident results of her generous nutrition):

     “WHO GOT WHAT?

     Sandra Alofivae: South Auckland barrister – $30,000 for “meeting facilitation” over five months

     Norm Hewitt: $20,000 for “meeting facilitation” over five months

     Powerhouse people: recruitment consultants – $57,533 for policy analysis, submissions support and “action plan” advice

     Audio Transcription and Secretarial Services: transcription – $420

     Barnardos: “facilitation” – $10,000 over four months

     Careering Options: Recruitment agency – $52,074 for “project management” between November and April

     Cognizant Technology Solutions: Database support – $1980

     David Balham: Communications adviser – $9500 for an “engagement strategy”

     JacksonStone and Partners: Recruitment consultants – $159,870 for an “engagement manager”

     Kylie van Delden: Policy adviser – $7913 over two months

     Lee-Anne Duncan: Freelance copywriter – $16,905 over two months

     Saatchi & Saatchi: Advertising firm – $8775 over one month.”

     …As quoted from the relevant stuff.co article – from today, as I suppose!

     Now, who of those recipients may perhaps also be some good old “friend(s)” of hers or her colleagues ???
     • Rogue Trooper 3.1.1

       1 December 2012 at 5:51 pm

       ecstatically amazing 🙂
     • fatty 3.1.2

       2 December 2012 at 3:06 pm

       thanks for that xtasy, I missed that.
   • prism 3.2

     2 December 2012 at 8:26 pm

     David H
     “$400,000 spent on consultants”. I don’t want to hear that. Too much information. It’s depressing and no wonder that so many NZs are topping themselves. I was looking at a 2005 Listener and then the suicides, or was it the murders, (all the same to the dead) exceeded the deaths from car accidents.

     This double book-keeping of neo lib economists has got us nearly blindfolded. Salaries and staff must be kept to a budget but there is a honey jar that can be dipped into for these bloody consultants. I know they offer special abilities and experience but are being used to replace workers on normal pay packets, and it justs has an effect to skew and screw the effective running of government and adjunct agencies.
4. Mary 4

   1 December 2012 at 1:01 pm

   It was found that Sam Kuha had been missing out on about $100 a week. I just hope that Bennett and her mob made sure he was paid the arrears that were owed to him.

   There are countless people on benefits who are routinely underpaid, and this is on top of an inadequate basic benefit to start with. Heaven help us if this is how we treat our most vulnerable.
   • xtasy 4.1

     1 December 2012 at 3:39 pm

     There are endless such cases, where clients do not get paid what they are actually entitled to. Bennett’s comment that policies were not always carried out on the ground as written is a ridiculous comment for her to make.

     As a matter of fact MSD and WINZ do not mind that this happens, indeed they even expect that their front-line staff apply criteria in a way, so that costs are saved. They used to reward case managers with bonuses when they made decisions that saved WINZ costs. I am unsure whether that is still the case, but it was years ago applied in such a manner.

     Bennett would know full well that this kind of stuff happens, just unfortunately WINZ got caught out, because Sam Kuha is a principled and determined person, so he took the actions that we all know now.

     That exposed what hard line staff at WINZ apply, and this is just one example.

     Sam’s belief that this has been “fixed now” means nothing much, as that maybe what he was told, but I bet you, that all will carry on as usual.

     A few years back I met a man who suffered a brain trauma during and after a hit and run accident, where he was knocked off his bike. He was in hospital and rehab for months, with multiple fractures.

     After he was allowed back home, with only little improvement to regain his memory and brain functions, I learned that he was only paid the base benefit rate as an invalid. When I phoned the case manager to raise this, given he had housing-, disability-related and other costs, they guy rudely just said, “well, he did not apply for that”.

     We learned recently, where a dismissed worker was told over the phone by WINZ staff, that she had to first use up her redundancy pay, before she would qualify for a benefit. That was wrong, but she found out later.

     If all beneficiaries would claim and get what they deserve, then this would increase costs, and the government will turn around and find ways to “recover” them, possibly by cutting some entitlements for all beneficiaries.

     When any person applies for a benefit, they should inform themselves well, by seeing an advocate or at least looking up info via the internet or so. Then ask as many questions as possible, to cover everything that may be worth claiming for. Staff will generally only answer to questions asked, and if they are not asked about an entitlement, they will usually not happily and willingly tell you.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 4.2

     1 December 2012 at 4:34 pm

     Absolutely, and I agree with Xtasy as that has been my experience and many other people I know of.

     We need a blogger/advocate to check with Sam that arrears have been paid. This fungus needs some sun.
5. xtasy 5

   1 December 2012 at 4:14 pm

   AAAP and some others delivered very good submissions to the Social Services Committee that heard submitters yesterday in Auckland.

   It was so noticeable, how the National MPs present were always trying to ask questions that were nothing but attempts to “compromise” statements made by submitters.

   What I found SHOCKING was that there was virtually NO MEDIA present. Also reading stories in the media, there is NO mention of the select committee hearings on the proposed, very radical and draconian welfare reforms, so as to imply, there is nothing of relevance to report on.

   So all this goes unreported, and it proves yet again, “poverty” is not “news-worthy”, unless it involves abuse by parents, crime, perverse sexual behaviour and the likes.

   I am totally appalled by this.

   For your information, the MPs present were: Sam Loto Iiga as chairperson, Melissa Lee, Jackie Blue Alfred Ngaro and Mike Sabin for National, Jacinda Ardern, Su’a William Sio, Rajen Prasad for Labour, Jan Logie for the Greens and Asenati Lole Taylor for NZ First.

   But we can all guess, they will all have made their minds up already and vote accordingly on the Social Security (Benefit Category and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, putting probably most into the law in unchanged wording.

   What a bloody disaster. So where is David Shearer on this, being the author of the “sickness beneficiary roofpainter” fairytale?
   • AsleepWhileWalking 5.1

     1 December 2012 at 4:37 pm

     Yes, where is Shearer? For that matter what is his position on all of this?

     It would seem to me that anybody interested in addressing poverty in this country should first check the availability and acessability of benefits for all those in need of welfare including low income earners making any modification or current shortcomings of the SSA of paramount importance.
     • xtasy 5.1.1

       1 December 2012 at 7:34 pm

       At least Jacinda has heard the soundings and wrote this:

       http://www.labour.org.nz/news/welfare-reforms-given-big-thumbs-down

       So I hope, I so DESPERATELY hope, that she sticks to the gun, stands up and takes Bennett to the cleaners, when the next 2nd reading will be in Parliament.

       Indeed I expect her to make more use of the media and hammer Bennett, Key and consorts, for the full and broad attack on the poorest and weakest in society.

       Or is it that the “media office” at Labour may not allow her to fire all available ammunition?

       I tend to have that sickish feeling down in my tummy.

       Jacinda, wake up, take a stand, show some principles and do not care about who is “leader” of Labour. Do your job, the more of this, the better. It can only be a start!
       • karol 5.1.1.1

         1 December 2012 at 8:02 pm

         Agreed xtasy.  This should have been a major news item.  Instead we get….. Tamihere, Hobbits, Rugby….

         I saw the AAAP submission yesterday, and that they had fronted to hearing/panel.  They are doing a great job. 
     • Mary 5.1.2

       1 December 2012 at 7:45 pm

       I was quite taken with Shearer’s speech at the time but now the dust has settled I realised I was swept away with what looked at that time to be Labour rediscovering its roots. What a fool I was – I’m hugely embarrassed about being so susceptible to something so weak and superficial. Shearer is and has always been and always will be no friend of the poor. For that reason, how ever nice a chap he may be, he needs to go.
6. lefty 6

   1 December 2012 at 8:09 pm

   CPAG (Child Poverty Action Group) and AAAP (Auckland Action Against Poverty) are different organisations. This post makes it appear they are the same.

   The submissions referred to were from AAAP.

   They are both very good organisations with one focusing on poverty through the lenses of Child Poverty and the other more of an activist group dealing with broader poverty issues

   Both are valiantly trying to provide a voice for the voiceless i.e. the one third of eligible voters who don’t bother turning up at the polls because they know the mainstream political parties and media don’t give a stuff about them and their children.
7. xtasy 7

   1 December 2012 at 8:17 pm

   On a submision criticising also the proposed stop of benefit benefit payments for persons against whom a warrant for arrest was issued, Mike Sabin asked a question along the lines like: What if your home was burgled, and the responsible persons being at large are still being able to draw the benefit, would you not find this unfair.

   The submitter stated that the whole process that is proposed is illegal, as MSD is not a law enforcement agency, as there were serious legal issues involved, and finally said: A person must be innocent until proved guilty.

   That though is not what the bill proposes. It treats clients and persons who may face a warrant as being guilty for the fact a warrant has been issued, even if that may be under wrong information, due to admin mistakes or whatever. Most warrants would likely be for failure to keep up with fine payments, or other minor obligations not being met. So why have WINZ become part of the police?

   The intention is clear, and Northland MP for National, Mike Sabin, as a former cop, will certainly have his “staunch” biased views on all this. There was much silence from other Nat MPs on other aspects the submitter raised. They rather appeared “gob smacked” by the information and competent knowledge the person presented, as one who had been affected by failures, mistakes and bias by WINZ staff and a commissioned designated doctor that was involved.
   • karol 7.1

     1 December 2012 at 8:27 pm

     Thanks for the reports of the submissions, xtasy. A good answer on not being a law enforcement agency, innocent til proven guilty, etc.

     This:

     What if your home was burgled, and the responsible persons being at large are still being able to draw the benefit, would you not find this unfair.

     So shows he/they are first thinking of him/themselves.  They should be thinking more about the lives of those struggling on low incomes. But it seems it’s just all about those already comfortably off, trying to gate themselves away from the struggling poor.
8. lefty 8

   1 December 2012 at 8:36 pm

   Put bluntly what Sabin seems to be saying is if a person is accused of burglary they should have the means of support for themselves and their family removed and pushed out onto the streets to starve.

   Not a nice man.
   • xtasy 8.1

     1 December 2012 at 9:14 pm

     If you follow that member’s track record in question time, and particularly the ones he asked to “the Minister” (Bennett), then you get a crystal clear picture of what that copper is about!
   • AsleepWhileWalking 8.2

     2 December 2012 at 10:07 am

     The key word there is “accused”. If the legislation passes beneficiaries are the only group of people who have their income stopped as soon as an arrest warrant is issued, despite not being found guilty of any crime.

     There are a number of white collar criminals I’d be far more concerned with if I were in the business of writing legislation.

     This legislation is really a slight variation of the benefit cheats being punished more severely than tax avoidance.
9. xtasy 9

   1 December 2012 at 9:22 pm

   Now I intruduce you to another “poverty loving” man, who happens to be my MP, damn it, but well, there were idiots enough to vote for him:

   http://www.nationalmps.co.nz/NationalCaucus/NationalMPs/PesetaSamLotuIiga/tabid/143/Default.aspx

   Auckland Grammar, Auckland Uni and Commerce and Law, then a truly “public service career”, and most notably, “later” he moved to “England” and started a career at guess where: “Bankers Trust as a financial analyst”! He also moved to Sydney to work for Macquarie Bank”. Hey dudes, is this not a fitting and similar resume to Hone Key?

   He chairs the Social Services Committee, and I wonder what qualifies the man for that job!

   Are people so dumb and ignorant not to get the message? Well, given the shit msm media we have, most would have NO clue about all this, aye!?

   Fuck what am I doing here, I could be earning mega bucks with my insight and knowledge, could I not?
10. karol 10

    2 December 2012 at 7:25 am

    AAAP really do have their s*it together.  An excellent bit of positive action coming up outside Onehunga WINZ office from Dec 10-12.

     Auckland Action Against Poverty (AAAP) is running what is known as an “impact” outside the office from December 10 to 12.

    Spokeswoman Sarah Thompson says experienced advocates from around the northern region will set up trestle tables and chairs and assess the needs and current assistance being given to local beneficiaries and low-paid workers.

    AAAP expects to find many who are not receiving additional support that beneficiaries are often not informed of, she says. …

    On December 11, a political rally will be held at lunchtime featuring speakers from Labour, the Greens and the Mana Party.
    • prism 10.1

      2 December 2012 at 8:28 pm

      karol
      Smarts from non government experienced people checking on the poorhouse government approach.
11. kiwicommie 11

    2 December 2012 at 10:33 am

    I feel like vomiting, counting down the days till I get to leave to the airport. I dislike John Key more than Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush, his welfare policies are pure evil.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS