Comments on: Podcast: Work and Income and the culture of disrespect http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/ hopping along the corridors of power Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:31:27 +1300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: www.freeadverts.co.nz http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97605 www.freeadverts.co.nz Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:01:15 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97605 Sweet az Graham! Irrespective of it been ancient history & bearing in mind you're not the only advocate who hasn't bothered to reply, your apology is accepted! & of course you won't find it under freeadverts! Kia kaha tonu Sweet az Graham!

Irrespective of it been ancient history & bearing in mind you’re not the only advocate who hasn’t bothered to reply, your apology is accepted!

& of course you won’t find it under freeadverts!

Kia kaha tonu

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Graham Howell http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97599 Graham Howell Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:34:35 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97599 Freeadverts, apolgies for none response but I have found nothing in my personal email nor that of the Benefit Rights Service (brs@wpc.net.nz)where I work under the name freeadverts. Please send again, attention Graham. Freeadverts, apolgies for none response but I have found nothing in my personal email nor that of the Benefit Rights Service (brs@wpc.net.nz)where I work under the name freeadverts. Please send again, attention Graham.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: www.freeadverts.co.nz http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97415 www.freeadverts.co.nz Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:50:39 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97415 Kiaora Graham, Bearing in mind you didn't bother to reply to an email I sent you sometime ago for help with a WINZ problem! I think beneficiary advocate individuals/organisations are in my view applaudable, as they help many as they have me in terms of defending our/their rights according to the law! In particularly a BIG THUMBS UP to the ones that are courteous enough to reply! Kiaora Graham,

Bearing in mind you didn’t bother to reply to an email I sent you sometime ago for help with a WINZ problem!

I think beneficiary advocate individuals/organisations are in my view applaudable, as they help many as they have me in terms of defending our/their rights according to the law!

In particularly a BIG THUMBS UP to the ones that are courteous enough to reply!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

]]> By: Graham Howell http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97394 Graham Howell Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:19:31 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97394 Photonz1, If benefit fraud, which you describe, is alleged then there is process to deal with that allegation and it is for the courts to determine. I do not support benefit fraud but I do recognise the fact that proof is needed rather than someone said this. Too many false allegations have been made. And I dispair at the the lowness of wages for most in NZ. Did you know the gap between highly paid and lowly paid in NZ ihas grown by some degrees of magnitude since the mid-1980s when we started on th economic is experiment. Sapient, well side-stepped. The Social Security Act does indeed specify criteria that applicants need to meet. Once that criteria is met the benefit is granted, and it is not then the role of some in society who deem they have to right to then categorise some on benefits as deserving and others as not deserving. Your previous comments have made allegations of benefit fraud and that some on benefits are deserving and others not so. If the state believes Joe or Sara do not meet the criteria in relation to the benefit they are on they have the ability to challenge that individuals eligibility. Some history, according to Magaret McGlure's A Civilised Society: A history of Social Security in New Zealand 1898-98, Pension Dept officials shortly after the awarding of the War Pensiuon after the end of WW1 argued against its universal nature for returned soldiers who became unemployed or sick because suspected malingerers could not be denied assistance..... things have mot changed. More history, between 1938-84 the NZ welfare state was built on the concept of full employment.... and we had very few beneficiaries as a consequence. The then government reneged on this policy, and they have ever since and the numbers on benefits has been a social issue ever since with the victim of this renegging being blamed. The relationship between the wage gap and renegging of the full employment promise and attacks on beneficiaries are all related. Photonz1, If benefit fraud, which you describe, is alleged then there is process to deal with that allegation and it is for the courts to determine. I do not support benefit fraud but I do recognise the fact that proof is needed rather than someone said this. Too many false allegations have been made. And I dispair at the the lowness of wages for most in NZ. Did you know the gap between highly paid and lowly paid in NZ ihas grown by some degrees of magnitude since the mid-1980s when we started on th economic is experiment.
Sapient, well side-stepped. The Social Security Act does indeed specify criteria that applicants need to meet. Once that criteria is met the benefit is granted, and it is not then the role of some in society who deem they have to right to then categorise some on benefits as deserving and others as not deserving. Your previous comments have made allegations of benefit fraud and that some on benefits are deserving and others not so. If the state believes Joe or Sara do not meet the criteria in relation to the benefit they are on they have the ability to challenge that individuals eligibility.
Some history, according to Magaret McGlure’s A Civilised Society: A history of Social Security in New Zealand 1898-98, Pension Dept officials shortly after the awarding of the War Pensiuon after the end of WW1 argued against its universal nature for returned soldiers who became unemployed or sick because suspected malingerers could not be denied assistance….. things have mot changed.
More history, between 1938-84 the NZ welfare state was built on the concept of full employment…. and we had very few beneficiaries as a consequence. The then government reneged on this policy, and they have ever since and the numbers on benefits has been a social issue ever since with the victim of this renegging being blamed.
The relationship between the wage gap and renegging of the full employment promise and attacks on beneficiaries are all related.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97392 Sapient Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:46:19 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97392 Graham, There is the presumption of innocence in the judicial system in almost all instances. The prosecution must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the individual is deserving of punishment; guilty. Likewise, the applicant should show, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are deserving of the benefit. The benefit is not a right, it is a privledge. Someone utilising said privledge does have very real costs to society. Thus it is appropriate that an individual should have to prove themselves worthy. This judgement of worthy is not some flimsy moral judgement to be made by god but is to be compared against the written law. Care for the family has no place being taken into account with the UB as not all on the UB have families that they need to support. As BJ has said, that should be managed through an entirely differnet benefit. Alterations should be made where those alterations are the most effective, not at the bottom of the cliff. Graham,

There is the presumption of innocence in the judicial system in almost all instances. The prosecution must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the individual is deserving of punishment; guilty. Likewise, the applicant should show, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are deserving of the benefit.

The benefit is not a right, it is a privledge. Someone utilising said privledge does have very real costs to society. Thus it is appropriate that an individual should have to prove themselves worthy. This judgement of worthy is not some flimsy moral judgement to be made by god but is to be compared against the written law.

Care for the family has no place being taken into account with the UB as not all on the UB have families that they need to support. As BJ has said, that should be managed through an entirely differnet benefit. Alterations should be made where those alterations are the most effective, not at the bottom of the cliff.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: photonz1 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97391 photonz1 Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:26:50 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97391 Graham says "Gosh, if I were able to distinguish between deserving and underserving poor in the NZ context," If you got a family who are all working full time and claiming the UB or IB or ACC, then you don't have to be a brain surgeon to distinguish who is deserving and who is undeserving. Sapient said it well above. When people keep trying to defend the indefensable, it harms rather than benefits their cause. If people are REALLY concerned for those on a benefits, surely they would be at the ftont of the que to root out those ripping off the system. It's appalling that people on average and low wages are paying taxes that go to people who earn much more than them (those who have a benefit AND a full time job). It's also disgusting that there are people who make all sorts of excuses for these criminals. Graham says “Gosh, if I were able to distinguish between deserving and underserving poor in the NZ context,”

If you got a family who are all working full time and claiming the UB or IB or ACC, then you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to distinguish who is deserving and who is undeserving.

Sapient said it well above. When people keep trying to defend the indefensable, it harms rather than benefits their cause.

If people are REALLY concerned for those on a benefits, surely they would be at the ftont of the que to root out those ripping off the system.

It’s appalling that people on average and low wages are paying taxes that go to people who earn much more than them (those who have a benefit AND a full time job).

It’s also disgusting that there are people who make all sorts of excuses for these criminals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Graham Howell http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97387 Graham Howell Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:57:37 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97387 Gosh, if I were able to distinguish between deserving and underserving poor in the NZ context, gosh I might be God or some other such creature. No, let me retract this. I am not God and do not wish to have this ability. I am a citizen, not some one desireous of attcking those without power. We have too many who believe they have this mandate employed by the state and those commenting on life and they exercise this power with huge "success". I guess one reason why our judicial system used to believe in the accused being innocent does not apply to beneficiaries as they now need to prove they are deserving. This inludes it seems accept whatever damn job is offered whatever the means and purpose, whatever human rights principles may be at stake, whatever care arrangements for family... the list goes on. Attacking those on benefits is so so easy, even if the attacker claims to only attack the undersiving. How does decide. Should we put them in jail or have them beg forgiveness from hose without sin. Gosh, if I were able to distinguish between deserving and underserving poor in the NZ context, gosh I might be God or some other such creature. No, let me retract this. I am not God and do not wish to have this ability. I am a citizen, not some one desireous of attcking those without power.
We have too many who believe they have this mandate employed by the state and those commenting on life and they exercise this power with huge “success”.
I guess one reason why our judicial system used to believe in the accused being innocent does not apply to beneficiaries as they now need to prove they are deserving.
This inludes it seems accept whatever damn job is offered whatever the means and purpose, whatever human rights principles may be at stake, whatever care arrangements for family… the list goes on. Attacking those on benefits is so so easy, even if the attacker claims to only attack the undersiving. How does decide. Should we put them in jail or have them beg forgiveness from hose without sin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97384 Sapient Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:16:11 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97384 Graham, I do not generalize all beneficiaries as bludgers, etc., but there are clearly some cases, even many cases, where the beneficiaries are bludgers. These individuals ruin it for all beneficiaries in that not only do they divert funds from the genuinely needy but they allow outsiders to paint all beneficiaries as if they too were bludgers. It is these people that need to be clamped down on and it is these people that we need to make it look like we are clamping down on so as to increase public opinion of beneficiaries. It is not unlike how I think the censorship which kevin was promoting can only hurt the queer community. <blockquote> Many can become dispirited from lack of succes, or have views as to their value as workers hence have been known to say to “no” potential employers. </blockquote> It is my belief that if they have been on the benefit for a substantial period of time, living of the work of others, then they should take whatever job comes their way. Even if they hate it. Even if it is picking up dog sh*t. They can then change to a better one if they can find it. There should be no right to turn down work past the first couple of months. If WINZ finds a job you should have to either do it or stop receiving the benefit. We cannot afford to support people while they hunt for their ideal job, especially if their qualification for such a job is based on a delusion. Graham,

I do not generalize all beneficiaries as bludgers, etc., but there are clearly some cases, even many cases, where the beneficiaries are bludgers. These individuals ruin it for all beneficiaries in that not only do they divert funds from the genuinely needy but they allow outsiders to paint all beneficiaries as if they too were bludgers. It is these people that need to be clamped down on and it is these people that we need to make it look like we are clamping down on so as to increase public opinion of beneficiaries. It is not unlike how I think the censorship which kevin was promoting can only hurt the queer community.

Many can become dispirited from lack of succes, or have views as to their value as workers hence have been known to say to “no” potential employers.

It is my belief that if they have been on the benefit for a substantial period of time, living of the work of others, then they should take whatever job comes their way. Even if they hate it. Even if it is picking up dog sh*t. They can then change to a better one if they can find it. There should be no right to turn down work past the first couple of months. If WINZ finds a job you should have to either do it or stop receiving the benefit.

We cannot afford to support people while they hunt for their ideal job, especially if their qualification for such a job is based on a delusion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Graham Howell http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97374 Graham Howell Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:45:19 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97374 I think the point being made was that there is only so many vacancies around at any one point in time, and once a specific vacancy is filled that vacancy no longer exists. Matching applicants for vacancies is complex, and just because a vacnancy is filled does not mean those regsitered as unemployed or even on the UB will drop as the vacancy can be filled by someone in an existing job (and their position is not necessarilly filled) or by someone not registered (for example partner of someone in paid work). We also have the situation were existing job are falling ()both part-time and full-time) and newly created ones are not picking up the new unemployed. The rise in registered unemployment and those on UB is going up, and yes some of these people gain paid work. This can be full-time forever, for a specific period, part-time or casual. The job market for most vacancies (and pople on UB) is very much an employers goldmine. They can plunder and the worst plunder quite unfairly. In a longish career working with the unemployed - and my name can be googled, rather than those with psuedonyms, few genuinely do not want paid work. Many can become dispirited from lack of succes, or have views as to their value as workers hence have been known to say to "no" potential employers. The power structures that exist around employment and benefits for those without paid work make it easy for accusations re bludgers, or being unfit for work. I'd have thought Green Party members would have an understanding of these structures and refrain from the generalisations, although as with everything specific accusations can be made. After all, there are good employers out there. I think the point being made was that there is only so many vacancies around at any one point in time, and once a specific vacancy is filled that vacancy no longer exists. Matching applicants for vacancies is complex, and just because a vacnancy is filled does not mean those regsitered as unemployed or even on the UB will drop as the vacancy can be filled by someone in an existing job (and their position is not necessarilly filled) or by someone not registered (for example partner of someone in paid work).
We also have the situation were existing job are falling ()both part-time and full-time) and newly created ones are not picking up the new unemployed.
The rise in registered unemployment and those on UB is going up, and yes some of these people gain paid work. This can be full-time forever, for a specific period, part-time or casual. The job market for most vacancies (and pople on UB) is very much an employers goldmine. They can plunder and the worst plunder quite unfairly.
In a longish career working with the unemployed – and my name can be googled, rather than those with psuedonyms, few genuinely do not want paid work. Many can become dispirited from lack of succes, or have views as to their value as workers hence have been known to say to “no” potential employers.
The power structures that exist around employment and benefits for those without paid work make it easy for accusations re bludgers, or being unfit for work. I’d have thought Green Party members would have an understanding of these structures and refrain from the generalisations, although as with everything specific accusations can be made. After all, there are good employers out there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: photonz1 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97366 photonz1 Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:42:30 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97366 E-phophet says "What they don’t understand is that, in times of high unemployment, for every unemployed person that gets a job there is one less vacancy for the rest of the unemployed." If anybody really beleived that, there there would never ever be any point for anyone getting a job - cause they would only be taking someone elses. It's just like Sapients case of clear benfit fraud - instead of condeming what is clearly a criminal act, Katie comes up with every excuse under the sun to defend it. Defense of the indefensible does not help the cause ot those who truely need help - it does the opposite. E-phophet says “What they don’t understand is that, in times of high unemployment, for every unemployed person that gets a job there is one less vacancy for the rest of the unemployed.”

If anybody really beleived that, there there would never ever be any point for anyone getting a job – cause they would only be taking someone elses.

It’s just like Sapients case of clear benfit fraud – instead of condeming what is clearly a criminal act, Katie comes up with every excuse under the sun to defend it.

Defense of the indefensible does not help the cause ot those who truely need help – it does the opposite.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

]]> By: E-prophet http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97362 E-prophet Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:17:05 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97362 Katie, Graham and Sapient all make useful points, but since each have their prejudices there is some disagreement when there is very little need for it. I have worked on three organisations that aimed to help the unemployed. I found if one is selective one can justify all the main arguments. 1. They need to stay on a benefit and deserve all the help they can, versus they don't want to work and are bludgers. 2. They are unemployable V they are fit for work. These people in need are only responsible for their part in the situation. If there are no suitable jobs available then even if someone can work is is cruel to blame them for not getting a job. Also from my personal experience, of being on IB for a year, declaring income from casual work can lead to loss of the benefit and great difficulty in get it back. So the incentive from the benefit system was to do it under the table. However there are people whose attitude is that they deserve support for everything and have no responsibility to help themselves. These people need tough love to change their attitude. One I failed to help had the attitude the employer should be grateful for any work he did because his father had a job (since gone) where he could featherbed. This person ended up in jail. Another person I helped had cerebral palsy but a good mind and a determination to work but was considered unemployable because of his disability. He would have made a good work supervisor because of his intelligence and work attitude. I agree with Catherine that people deserve respect and understanding. This requires suitable training for WINZ employees. Most do not understand the situation and often they only look at situation from their present position. So they have the attitude, " I was unemployed and got this job so everyone can get job." What they don't understand is that, in times of high unemployment, for every unemployed person that gets a job there is one less vacancy for the rest of the unemployed. E Katie, Graham and Sapient all make useful points, but since each have their prejudices there is some disagreement when there is very little need for it.
I have worked on three organisations that aimed to help the unemployed. I found if one is selective one can justify all the main arguments.
1. They need to stay on a benefit and deserve all the help they can, versus they don’t want to work and are bludgers.
2. They are unemployable V they are fit for work.

These people in need are only responsible for their part in the situation. If there are no suitable jobs available then even if someone can work is is cruel to blame them for not getting a job.
Also from my personal experience, of being on IB for a year, declaring income from casual work can lead to loss of the benefit and great difficulty in get it back. So the incentive from the benefit system was to do it under the table.
However there are people whose attitude is that they deserve support for everything and have no responsibility to help themselves. These people need tough love to change their attitude. One I failed to help had the attitude the employer should be grateful for any work he did because his father had a job (since gone) where he could featherbed. This person ended up in jail.
Another person I helped had cerebral palsy but a good mind and a determination to work but was considered unemployable because of his disability. He would have made a good work supervisor because of his intelligence and work attitude.
I agree with Catherine that people deserve respect and understanding. This requires suitable training for WINZ employees. Most do not understand the situation and often they only look at situation from their present position. So they have the attitude, ” I was unemployed and got this job so everyone can get job.” What they don’t understand is that, in times of high unemployment, for every unemployed person that gets a job there is one less vacancy for the rest of the unemployed.
E

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Graham Howell http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-97163 Graham Howell Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:59:59 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-97163 Hi, I have been off line for a few days, in Rotorua assisting the beneficiary advocacy group there to help local citizens get their full and correct entitlement under the law. The Social Security Act prescribes and describes various entitlements and criteria. There are some areas where it state assistance "may" be provided and this requires decision makers to use their "discretion". That is being fair and reasonable, taking into account relevant facts and disregarding irrelevant ones. I agree whole=heartedly that applicants and those receiving support have legal obligations as do the public servants. If some are breaking the law they need to account whether this is getting assistance they are not entitled to, or not providing assistance when this is the case. As for poverty. Few,if any New Zealanders are in the same plight of those in Africa and no one has said this. Nevertheless, poverty is recognised in this land of milk and honey and it has real consequences for the state (and us collectively) to say nothing for those trapped in this malise. I also agree some can survive on the benefit. I recall some living under bridges or in wooded areas in our cities stating they can survive on the main benefit alone. Such living is not encouraged or expected of parents and their children and a sign of Jim Bolger's "Decent Society" is that we all should be able live in warm housing, have security about our living arrangements, have food and that our chidlren are not discriminated against by virtue of the source of income of the parents, and maybe take part in our community (as the Royal Commission into Social Welfare satted in 1976?). Sadly too many New Zealanders are developing a belief that it is okay to discriminate against people on benefits. I would hope Green members with such views would reconsider. Hi, I have been off line for a few days, in Rotorua assisting the beneficiary advocacy group there to help local citizens get their full and correct entitlement under the law.
The Social Security Act prescribes and describes various entitlements and criteria. There are some areas where it state assistance “may” be provided and this requires decision makers to use their “discretion”. That is being fair and reasonable, taking into account relevant facts and disregarding irrelevant ones.
I agree whole=heartedly that applicants and those receiving support have legal obligations as do the public servants. If some are breaking the law they need to account whether this is getting assistance they are not entitled to, or not providing assistance when this is the case.
As for poverty. Few,if any New Zealanders are in the same plight of those in Africa and no one has said this. Nevertheless, poverty is recognised in this land of milk and honey and it has real consequences for the state (and us collectively) to say nothing for those trapped in this malise. I also agree some can survive on the benefit. I recall some living under bridges or in wooded areas in our cities stating they can survive on the main benefit alone. Such living is not encouraged or expected of parents and their children and a sign of Jim Bolger’s “Decent Society” is that we all should be able live in warm housing, have security about our living arrangements, have food and that our chidlren are not discriminated against by virtue of the source of income of the parents, and maybe take part in our community (as the Royal Commission into Social Welfare satted in 1976?). Sadly too many New Zealanders are developing a belief that it is okay to discriminate against people on benefits. I would hope Green members with such views would reconsider.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-96621 Sapient Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:27:27 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-96621 Graham Howell, So someone whom can, and does, work over 40-hours a week should receive the IB? While it is true that I do not know that the case workers do not know this, it is also true that, accepting what they have said as the truth, the work they do is under the table. ~ As to poverty, it does not exist in any real sense in this country where even the poorest live comparable to kings of old (the homeless being the obvious exception, but that is an entirely different matter; one of mental disturbance and personal choice). I have many factors impairing my functioning, I had to stop working and my doctor continues to suggest that I stop studying and start sitting on my arse. I survive on substantially less than the unemployment benefit (and I have to pay it all back) and yet I would consider my lifestyle rather extravagant considering im not actually earning any money. Graham Howell,

So someone whom can, and does, work over 40-hours a week should receive the IB?
While it is true that I do not know that the case workers do not know this, it is also true that, accepting what they have said as the truth, the work they do is under the table.

~

As to poverty, it does not exist in any real sense in this country where even the poorest live comparable to kings of old (the homeless being the obvious exception, but that is an entirely different matter; one of mental disturbance and personal choice). I have many factors impairing my functioning, I had to stop working and my doctor continues to suggest that I stop studying and start sitting on my arse. I survive on substantially less than the unemployment benefit (and I have to pay it all back) and yet I would consider my lifestyle rather extravagant considering im not actually earning any money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

]]> By: Graham Howell http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-96565 Graham Howell Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:11:03 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-96565 Several issues: Firstly - Do not rely on the MSD website as it only the gospel of some official and not necessarilly the law. Discretion exists in all sorts of areas as is interpretation of any peice of law. My own expeience with taking cases as a beneficiary advocate has forced significant reinterpretation by MSD following the case because the judge accepted my interpretation rather than MSD/Crown Laws. (This does not my cleverness but, rather their foolishness) Secondly: While not saying these folks you have met are honourable in all matters I would not make assupmptions about what is known or not between them and DWI case managers. And yes benefit fraud does exist, I have met some of them... it is form of white collar criminality. Thirdly: The process of being granted IB or SB is much more than finding a sympathetic doctor. DWI can request an independent opinion by a so-called "designated doctor". Beyond this DWI does not have to accept the medical opinion of even the designated doctor even if the medical opinions indicate grant the IB. Should the applicant be declined by DWI they need to appeal to a medical Appeal Board (two GPs and an occupational therapist or psychologist typically). Fourthly: While not specific to IB eligibility there is much evidence of DWI inability to ensure correct take-up. For example, DWI/MSD can assess eligibility to third tier assistance hardship assistance based on known costs such as rent. Yet based on this very knowledge/analysis MSD admit take-up is 80% of those eligibile in the best service centres and as low 30% in the worst. And strangely brown folk are worse off than white ones. Poverty sucks and the arm of state with specific responsibility to alleiviate it - and note I do not say elinminate - is poor when the hard questions are asked. Several issues:
Firstly – Do not rely on the MSD website as it only the gospel of some official and not necessarilly the law. Discretion exists in all sorts of areas as is interpretation of any peice of law. My own expeience with taking cases as a beneficiary advocate has forced significant reinterpretation by MSD following the case because the judge accepted my interpretation rather than MSD/Crown Laws. (This does not my cleverness but, rather their foolishness)
Secondly: While not saying these folks you have met are honourable in all matters I would not make assupmptions about what is known or not between them and DWI case managers. And yes benefit fraud does exist, I have met some of them… it is form of white collar criminality.
Thirdly: The process of being granted IB or SB is much more than finding a sympathetic doctor. DWI can request an independent opinion by a so-called “designated doctor”. Beyond this DWI does not have to accept the medical opinion of even the designated doctor even if the medical opinions indicate grant the IB. Should the applicant be declined by DWI they need to appeal to a medical Appeal Board (two GPs and an occupational therapist or psychologist typically).
Fourthly: While not specific to IB eligibility there is much evidence of DWI inability to ensure correct take-up. For example, DWI/MSD can assess eligibility to third tier assistance hardship assistance based on known costs such as rent. Yet based on this very knowledge/analysis MSD admit take-up is 80% of those eligibile in the best service centres and as low 30% in the worst. And strangely brown folk are worse off than white ones.
Poverty sucks and the arm of state with specific responsibility to alleiviate it – and note I do not say elinminate – is poor when the hard questions are asked.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-96531 Sapient Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:55:43 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-96531 BJ, What do you mean I don't recognise the 2-year expanse of 'permanent'? It was listed in the criteria I quoted. The problem, as I see it, is that if they can choose their doctors and one doctor put them forward for the IB when they do not in reality qualify then they will tend to return to that doctor or one that is recommended by that doctor so as to retain their 'entitlement'. People and doctors whom rort the system hurt others whom are in genuine need substantially and, to a lesser extent, hurt also those whom are members of society in general. ~ I much prefer inquisitorial/continental systems to the adversarial approach to justice; the same has every reason to apply to the scheme as well. ----------------------------------------------------- Graham Howell, Those criteria are not my own but are taken directly from the ministry of social development website. These individuals had regular work and it was most certainly not authorised given their emphasis on me - an almost total stranger with no obligation to them - keeping it a secret. BJ,

What do you mean I don’t recognise the 2-year expanse of ‘permanent’? It was listed in the criteria I quoted.

The problem, as I see it, is that if they can choose their doctors and one doctor put them forward for the IB when they do not in reality qualify then they will tend to return to that doctor or one that is recommended by that doctor so as to retain their ‘entitlement’.

People and doctors whom rort the system hurt others whom are in genuine need substantially and, to a lesser extent, hurt also those whom are members of society in general.

~

I much prefer inquisitorial/continental systems to the adversarial approach to justice; the same has every reason to apply to the scheme as well.

—————————————————–

Graham Howell,

Those criteria are not my own but are taken directly from the ministry of social development website.

These individuals had regular work and it was most certainly not authorised given their emphasis on me – an almost total stranger with no obligation to them – keeping it a secret.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-96480 bjchip Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:22:02 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-96480 <i>an area of damp, ill-ventilated hovels in which the working classes kept alive by the skin of their teeth</i> You mean New Zealand, don't you. :-) (Sorry, it is SUCH a straight line) . I am afraid that I tend to agree with Sapient. If the IB is being used by people who are able to work and willing (as indicated by the fact that they are working) to work, one has to at least suspect that there <b>is</b> a problem. If the cause is as you guess, then the question is how to adjudge it to be permanent? People DO recover from all sorts of trauma. I can't imagine what it is like to be one of those people, but I do see an awful lot of people pick themselves up and get on with life after some pretty awful stuff. This is not about the Edwardian standards advocated by National or the sub-Edwardian versions endorsed by ACT, it is about the appropriateness of the "permanent" disability being offered. I think that Sapient has made an error in not recognizing that "permanent" is actually 2 years long in terms of the law so it can and likely WILL be reviewed, but I believe that once people are certified on IB, most can be expected to try to remain there. Which means that reviewers will be screening reluctant witnesses to determine if a recipient should be pushed out of their comfort zone. The whole process is adversarial though. Which seems to me to indicate a basic wrongness underlying it. Something to think about, to be sure. respectfully BJ an area of damp, ill-ventilated hovels in which the working classes kept alive by the skin of their teeth

You mean New Zealand, don’t you. :-)

(Sorry, it is SUCH a straight line) .

I am afraid that I tend to agree with Sapient. If the IB is being used by people who are able to work and willing (as indicated by the fact that they are working) to work, one has to at least suspect that there is a problem. If the cause is as you guess, then the question is how to adjudge it to be permanent? People DO recover from all sorts of trauma. I can’t imagine what it is like to be one of those people, but I do see an awful lot of people pick themselves up and get on with life after some pretty awful stuff.

This is not about the Edwardian standards advocated by National or the sub-Edwardian versions endorsed by ACT, it is about the appropriateness of the “permanent” disability being offered. I think that Sapient has made an error in not recognizing that “permanent” is actually 2 years long in terms of the law so it can and likely WILL be reviewed, but I believe that once people are certified on IB, most can be expected to try to remain there. Which means that reviewers will be screening reluctant witnesses to determine if a recipient should be pushed out of their comfort zone.

The whole process is adversarial though. Which seems to me to indicate a basic wrongness underlying it. Something to think about, to be sure.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Graham Howell http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-96478 Graham Howell Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:11:01 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-96478 Beneficiary bashing! While I am not accusing Sapient or other readers of this steam but knocking individuals or by implication all beneficiaries of a particular type buys into the Governments agenda of beneficiary bashing. The Minister, Paula Bennet has had three significant attempts at beneficiary bashing. Recall her attack on the two women and the Training Incentive Allowance. She also attacked large families who were geting their full and correct entitlement including Family Tax Credits. She has also attacked those needing food special needs grants. I suspect it is a softening up process for more systemic attacks via the 2010 Budget. I also have comments in relationship to Sapients criteria for IB as there is an inaccuracy. The criteria actually is 15-hours in "open" employment, and even with this, agreement with the Department of Work and Income can be arranged to allow people to be employed for more than 15-hours in open employment for up to six months and possibly longer. This creates a permissive or permitting environment that on the one hand tries to asist people back into full-time work while also recognising the fact that relapse may occur. I do not know all the details of those Sapient suggests/implies are rorting the system and do want to point the figure, let alone draw inferences as to how well or not DWI administer the IB process. My reading of the Auditor-General's report into the IB/SB is that the Auditor-General did not understand all the issues involved and that the report writer relied heavily on narrow views held by some in the Ministry of Social Development. Beneficiary bashing!

While I am not accusing Sapient or other readers of this steam but knocking individuals or by implication all beneficiaries of a particular type buys into the Governments agenda of beneficiary bashing. The Minister, Paula Bennet has had three significant attempts at beneficiary bashing. Recall her attack on the two women and the Training Incentive Allowance. She also attacked large families who were geting their full and correct entitlement including Family Tax Credits. She has also attacked those needing food special needs grants. I suspect it is a softening up process for more systemic attacks via the 2010 Budget.
I also have comments in relationship to Sapients criteria for IB as there is an inaccuracy. The criteria actually is 15-hours in “open” employment, and even with this, agreement with the Department of Work and Income can be arranged to allow people to be employed for more than 15-hours in open employment for up to six months and possibly longer. This creates a permissive or permitting environment that on the one hand tries to asist people back into full-time work while also recognising the fact that relapse may occur. I do not know all the details of those Sapient suggests/implies are rorting the system and do want to point the figure, let alone draw inferences as to how well or not DWI administer the IB process. My reading of the Auditor-General’s report into the IB/SB is that the Auditor-General did not understand all the issues involved and that the report writer relied heavily on narrow views held by some in the Ministry of Social Development.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Graham Howell http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-96469 Graham Howell Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:47:19 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-96469 The need for Beneficiary Advocacy Groups around the country is critical, especially as the Dept of Work and Income seize the opportunity to get tough on benes as is their wont from time to time. I strongly suggest being well trained as wrong/poor advice can be disasterous. I work at the Benefit Rights Service, Wellington Peoples Centre., and amongst other activities we provide high quality training from e benefit rights persepctive about the Social ecurity Act and its related regulations, programmes and directives. This is in part based on our understanding of case law, including cases we have been involved in at Court of Appeal, High Court etc. We also produce a Benefit Fact File by annual subscription with quarterly updates. This is a plain English explanation of area of social welfare law and policy and is over 50-pages long. Check out our website: www.wellingtonpeoplescentre.org.nz Graham Howell The need for Beneficiary Advocacy Groups around the country is critical, especially as the Dept of Work and Income seize the opportunity to get tough on benes as is their wont from time to time. I strongly suggest being well trained as wrong/poor advice can be disasterous. I work at the Benefit Rights Service, Wellington Peoples Centre., and amongst other activities we provide high quality training from e benefit rights persepctive about the Social ecurity Act and its related regulations, programmes and directives. This is in part based on our understanding of case law, including cases we have been involved in at Court of Appeal, High Court etc.
We also produce a Benefit Fact File by annual subscription with quarterly updates. This is a plain English explanation of area of social welfare law and policy and is over 50-pages long.
Check out our website: http://www.wellingtonpeoplescentre.org.nz

Graham Howell

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-96408 Sapient Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:51:33 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-96408 Katie, Sorry for the late reply, I did not see your response until Drakula commented. It would help if you actually read what I posted rather than what you wanted me to have posted. I do not object to the IB and have on many occasions stated that I support individuals legitimately on the benefit being provided for to the best of our ability. My point was not one attacking the existence of the IB but one criticising the way it is run. I think I provided a plentitude of data which was more than enough to establish that there is very large abuse of the benefit here. The criteria for the IB are cited as: <blockquote> To qualify for the Invalid’s Benefit you must be aged 16 years or over and: unable to regularly work 15 hours or more a week because of a sickness, injury or disability which is expected to last at least 2 years or your life expectancy is expected to be less than 2 years and you are unable to regularly work 15 hours or more a week or blind with a specified level of restriction in your visual field or in the sharpness of your vision. </blockquote> They all work over 15 hours, two more than twice that. By definition they do not qualify. Their personal circumstances otherwise, so long as they are not blind, are legally irrelevant to their qualification. I only know the details because they were, liturally, laughing it up. This points to a major flaw in the system. Katie,
Sorry for the late reply, I did not see your response until Drakula commented.

It would help if you actually read what I posted rather than what you wanted me to have posted. I do not object to the IB and have on many occasions stated that I support individuals legitimately on the benefit being provided for to the best of our ability. My point was not one attacking the existence of the IB but one criticising the way it is run.
I think I provided a plentitude of data which was more than enough to establish that there is very large abuse of the benefit here. The criteria for the IB are cited as:

To qualify for the Invalid’s Benefit you must be aged 16 years or over and:
unable to regularly work 15 hours or more a week because of a sickness, injury or disability which is expected to last at least 2 years or
your life expectancy is expected to be less than 2 years and you are unable to regularly work 15 hours or more a week or
blind with a specified level of restriction in your visual field or in the sharpness of your vision.

They all work over 15 hours, two more than twice that. By definition they do not qualify. Their personal circumstances otherwise, so long as they are not blind, are legally irrelevant to their qualification. I only know the details because they were, liturally, laughing it up. This points to a major flaw in the system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

]]> By: Drakula http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/16/podcast-work-and-income-and-the-culture-of-disrespect/#comment-96377 Drakula Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:23:32 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/?p=7679#comment-96377 Katie; That was a very good post you obviously know your stuff. I might also add that the excesses of capitalism that led to the 1929 crash was not only restricted to Wellington and Dunedin it was worldwide as you probably know. I am also reading a good book called 'The Whispering Years' by Harry Bowling It is about East End London by the docks where men with families had lost their jobs and the only jobs available were for non union workers working for subcontractors who took short cuts and hired gangs of thugs to keep them in line. I don't want to give away the plot. This seems to be a bit like the temping scene today. We need to remind the younger generation just how much the union movement has won society in terms of human rights after the depression and WW2. Now we are stampeding straight into the 19th century in terms of human rights and that's just the way the capitalist elites would want it!!!! They are up to all sorts of tricks to cloud the issues and we don't have to look very far to see evedence of this. The latest ploy used by these trolls is to present socialism as communism in order to promote the 'Big Bogey' theory. Then once the 'Big Bogeys' get a hold of somewhere and 'collapse' someting then we have the 'Domino' theory as promoted by the late war criminal senator Robert MacNamara. Katie; That was a very good post you obviously know your stuff. I might also add that the excesses of capitalism that led to the 1929 crash was not only restricted to Wellington and Dunedin it was worldwide as you probably know.

I am also reading a good book called ‘The Whispering Years’ by Harry Bowling It is about East End London by the docks where men with families had lost their jobs and the only jobs available were for non union workers working for subcontractors who took short cuts and hired gangs of thugs to keep them in line. I don’t want to give away the plot.

This seems to be a bit like the temping scene today. We need to remind the younger generation just how much the union movement has won society in terms of human rights after the depression and WW2.

Now we are stampeding straight into the 19th century in terms of human rights and that’s just the way the capitalist elites would want it!!!!
They are up to all sorts of tricks to cloud the issues and we don’t have to look very far to see evedence of this.

The latest ploy used by these trolls is to present socialism as communism in order to promote the ‘Big Bogey’ theory.

Then once the ‘Big Bogeys’ get a hold of somewhere and ‘collapse’ someting then we have the ‘Domino’ theory as promoted by the late war criminal senator Robert MacNamara.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

]]>