www.oocities.org/ubinz/press/1999723HeraldMilneWINZ.html

Dialogue, NZ Herald, 23 July 1999
 

Work and Income New Zealand, like Income Support before it, is a significant control on the lives of beneficiaries. Trends over the past few years indicate the control will intensify.

The agency has the power to query beneficiaries' personal relationships and generally pry into their lives as a means of establishing financial arrangements and eligibility for a benefit. These powers are intrusive on people's privacy and autonomy.

Even the possibility of surveillance can have an unhealthy effect on a person's behaviour, especially when neighbours, ex-partners and others in the community could be involved.

The encouragement to "dob in" beneficiaries produces an unacceptable model of behaviour for society. Suggesting that it is okay to report someone on the basis of whatever information someone thinks is sufficient not only undermines community cohesiveness but encourages people to act without concern for fairness or the family.

Income Support did not volunteer information on benefit eligibility and rights, and indications are that this attitude is unchanged with the amalgamation of Income Support and the Employment Service, as Winz.

Responsibilities are emphasised and anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been an active if informal policy of giving as little information as possible unless it is asked for.

Many beneficiaries find the language in the pamphlets difficult. Information is mostly gleaned instead from neighbours, families and friends, who are much safer sources.

Letters from Social Welfare are regarded with deep suspicion and often not opened for some time, for fear of what they might contain. The language used in these communications is official and legal terminology, which leaves the recipients feeling powerless and often intimidated, con fused and exhausted.

A typical comment from beneficiaries is, "You only get threatening letters basically ... like here is your review and if it doesn't come back in four weeks' time your benefit will be cut."

Rapid policy changes to social security have left most beneficiaries in extreme uncertainty and this also has an impact on Winz employees.

Previous changes in policy have taken place with minimal information and little allowance made for implementation, with the result that local agencies have spent weeks developing an appropriate response.

During that time it is impossible to get coherent and accurate information from support staff and beneficiaries just have to wait to learn of the impact on their lives.

The lack of accountability and erratic policy implementation have continued with Winz. Uncertain rules leave beneficiaries under a great deal of stress. Some exhibit behaviour that otherwise would be regarded with some concern.

One said: "I am so scared I'm going to get caught for something, even though I have done nothing, that they will ask for it back.

"I would never go public on any issue to do with [the agency]. I cultivate the deserving image - I talk like I'm sick very quietly."

The impact on families, especially children, of a parent under this sort of stress is considerable.

There seems to be no consistent manual for staff on the entitlements of beneficiaries, although staff do have training workshops and are regularly updated by e-mail. But interpretation is up to individuals with an internal review system for any dissatisfied "customers." The discretion is of concern.

We hear comments such as, "I had been told that I had to have a meeting with my ... worker for a review of my special benefit. I found this a humiliating experience with a worker who was a young male who had no experience of my circumstances ... he had no idea and just mouthed the rules at me and told me to go to a budget adviser. I'm really struggling."

Beneficiaries report many inconsistencies, and entitlements which are discovered too late. While some staff take a supportive approach to their work, others clearly take a punitive approach and are experienced by beneficiaries as erratic, unprofessional and unsympathetic. Staff are not helped by the complexity of benefit rules and entitlements.

The main source of additional assistance is now refundable benefits. Beneficiaries report that they lose track of what they owe to Winz as repayments are deducted at source and no regularly updated accounts are sent. The instalments for repayment of these loans seem to beneficiaries to be completely arbitrary and are charged out on each item, rather than assessing what might be affordable.

Recoverable loans and eligibility for additional assistance through Whiz come with a subtext of blame. The requirement to report to Winz every three months to justify the extra income and provide evidence of having received budgeting advice is exceptionally difficult, especially as it is often as a result of high housing costs.

Budget-advice counsellors report that only a small percentage of their clients are able to reduce their outgoings and that most have to in crease their income. Information from budgeters and community workers indicates that it is not lack of budgeting skills but an inadequate in- come which is the primary cause of debt for beneficiaries and their families.

More recently the funding of budgeting services has been boosted by $7 million and beneficiaries will be automatically referred for compulsory budget advice when they receive a benefit.

When Winz workers do operate as advocates they are hugely appreciated by their clients. However, the dual role of arbiter of rights and responsibilities as well as of support is at odds with Winz workers' perceptions of themselves as advocates.

There is a fundamental contradiction in their role and that of the organisation. They are expected to tightly control Government spending but also act as advocates in an environment which is hostile to the people they are meant to support.