Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

GOTTA LOVE THE BOOK – by which everything is done!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Toad, it seems very possible that this individual was a female Phil, dont you think that after the heckling and supposed verbal abuse dirrected at him, presumibly on a regular basis, he may have, esspecially if he had explained learly she was not elegable, he may have been in the right to request that she take leave of him? even if the manner was alittle ‘foul mouthed’.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

10A Review of decisions(1) This section applies to—
(a) an applicant or beneficiary affected by a decision made by any person in the exercise of any power, function, or discretion conferred on the person by delegation , against which the applicant or beneficiary has a right of appeal under section 12J; or
(b) an applicant, beneficiary, or other person in respect of whom a person makes any decision in the exercise of a power under section 19D(1)(a) of the Social Welfare (Transitional Provisions) Act 1990 conferred on the decision-making person by delegation , against which the applicant or beneficiary or other person has a right of appeal under section 12J.
(1A) A person to whom this section applies may apply in writing for a review of the decision to the appropriate district review committee established under this section.
(1B) The application must be made—
(a) within 3 months after receiving notification of the decision; or…

I think it is quite clear here that an applicant must be given an opportunity to make a formal application, and must be formally advised of the outcome of the application. It is probably okay for a case manager to tell a beneficiary that he or she doesn’t think they qualify, and the reasons for that, and invite him or her to not apply – but the beneficiary should always still be given the opportunity to formally make the application if he or she does not want to accept that advice.

As for verbal notification when a decision on an application is made, I seriously doubt that is anticipated by the legislation. With a verbal notification there would be no record of what the decision actually was and what the reasons for it were. That would make it almost impossible for the applicant to exercise his or her review rights – a review based on a verbal decision would descent into a “he said – said” shambles as the precise nature of the decision and the reasons for it would be unclear.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Even more worrying are the mistakes that get made when beneficiaries use the 0800 number to advise income they’ve earned, it doesn’t get recorded, and they then end up being caught in a data-match for supposed undeclared income and investigated by the Benefit Control Unit.

Now I’ll accept some of those may have be running a scam and told me a pack of porkies about phoning to declare the income – but there were some who actually had independent witnesses such as employers or workmates who had overheard them making the call, and in some cases it could be traced through Work and Income phone records that they had made the call, but no income details had been recorded.

I used to advise beneficiaries to not use the 0800 number, but email, fax or post the details so they can retain a copy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/08/06/beneficiaries/#comment-51910

She gets her 6 monthly review form to fill out.

Takes it personally up to reception and makes sure it is on her file. Gets an appointment with her case manager in three weeks time (first available appointment).

The next week her benefit is cut. Goes to WINZ to be told, the case manager has not seen the form or had the interview, so no benefit.

But even though she explains she cant see the case manager till next week (the case manger sets the appointment time).

She is basically told to f*** off and go and see the salvation army for a food grant.

Never mind that she cant pay any bills, incurs extra charges at kiwibank for automatic payment reversals, etc.

Talk about never being able to get ahead!

Feel sick to my guts that she has to go through the hoops all the time, treated like a non-person in the eyes of the case manager who seems more interested in getting their bonus then looking after their beneficiaries.

And that is from a blue-green.

Think Strings is on the right track with the fact that case managers should be taught to say yes to all benefit entitlements and not be on a bonus to hand out as little as possible.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The issue is – still in my mind – to do with training. In a recent assignment I was workling with the people who process applicxations for permission to do something physical in a city boundry (e.g. build a house, hold a procession, sub-divide land, conduct a fair, etc.,). The immediate approach for the people who worked there was to find a way to say no. This, they had been taught, was the reason for their existance – to identify conflicts between what the rules say and what the applicant wants to do.

It took about two years all up, but we developed an approach based on finding a way to say YES! Looking at the application and seeing if there was a way it could pass the tests, and if it couldn’t advising the applicant on what they needed to do so that it would. It took a lot of effort, but in the end, everyone there was happier, and so were the applicants! (we surveyed 100% from day 1 – the impact was tracable!)

With beneficiaries, there are those who rort the system just like the people in that old UK TV Program “BREAD”. They need to be weeded out. There are also those with genuine need, who society should assist to the extent permitted by law. WHile welfare shuld not be available as a lifestyle choice, it must provide a safety net, and for those in need of that net – what is needed and available should be applied.

PS. In the case of school holidays, the idea of an increased benefit to cover additional costs is a good one, as is the concept of unpaid leave. The worker would need to save during their worling weeks, but would be able to provide sustenance of both the mat/pat-ernal type as well as others. There is no excuse for bludging as a life-style choice.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Anyone should have the right to approach Work and Income and make an application for assistance. The application should be processed, according to the individual circumstances of the applicant (the facts) and the application of the legislation, regulations, Ministerial Directions and/or Ministerial Welfare Programmes in force at the time (the law) to those facts. A decision should then be made to grant or decline the assistance applied for. That decision should be communicated in writing to the applicant, and rights of review notified in case the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision and wishes to challenge it.

That is what natural justice demands. Simply telling an applicant, however justified or unjustified their application may be, to “f… off� is not only incredibly rude and unprofessional, but also unlawful.

The case manager effectively deprived the applicant of her right to be dealt with fairly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The fact that he also did it rudely just exacerbates it. I am please to see that Tara Marks is now taking the Ministry to court, but it should not have to come to that – they should have processed her application correctly in the first place.

I do agree with you re your comment on “prior knowledge of how to play the system”, however, although perhaps not the way you intended. Back in the late 1990s, I had the misfortune due to family circumstances to have to apply for a benefit, having worked as an advocate for beneficiaries and ACC claimants for some years. I was given the most courteous and helpful assistance, and even was offered a discretionary entitlement on the basis of “exceptional circumstances” without having to ask for it.

This was in direct contrast to the experience of many of the people I had represented over the years, many of whom had been denied assistance they were quite clearly entitled to. The difference in my case was that I knew how the system worked, and the case manager knew that I knew.

The culture that pervaded Work and Income in those days was:

- If I know there is no entitlement, then say “No”.

- If I’m not sure if there is an entitlement and can’t be bothered looking it up, then say “No”.

- If I think there might be an entitlement, and think I can get away with saying “No”, then say “No”.

- My job is to save the Government money.

While I acknowledge there has been some improvement, the Rotorua incident and a number of others I have had related to me would indicate that culture still exists to some extent.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

toad Says:
If I were on the receiving end of that verbal and body language, I would take it as someone gloating about the power he had over me.

Don’t forget that young people today are much more familiar and less formal in their use of language.

For example “bugger” is now perfectly acceptable even on TV. The F word is all over the media too.

It is just not acceptable to use a minor WINZ slipup as a reason for grandstanding.

I want to see her behaviour given the same scrutiny as his, and for him to be given every opportunity to explain why he thought it was fine to speak to her in such a familiar way.

If anything is to be on trial it should be the unequal distribution of benefits based on race, gender, and prior knowledge of how to play the system.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Um, a big smile on his face while he was telling someone to “f*** off”?

That give me a very different message from the one you seem to be getting greengeek. If I were on the receiving end of that verbal and body language, I would take it as someone gloating about the power he had over me.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And the only reason I made this post was to say it is now first equal with the ‘RIP Rod Donald’ thread. There you go, benificiary bashing ranks right along side the death of a beloved (true green) co-leader.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Not at all, Shunda. Just that if you post comments like that here, you should post some evidential detail supporting them. Kevin deserves the right to respond, but what you’ve posted doesn’t give any detail to respond to.

The alleged “problems” with the West Coast DHB may be known to you as a Coaster, but to me as an Aucklander I have no idea what you are talking about -apart from some issues over trial “contracted out” referrals to Christchurch that I’ve vaguely heard about.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)