www.oocities.org/ubinz/press/1999727DominionOpinionWINZ.html

Opinion page, The Dominion, 27 July 1999
 

A PARLIAMENTARY select committee inquiry is required into the operation of Work and Income New Zealand.

The inquiry should examine the organisation's culture; the operation of benefit review committee hearings and Winz's low emphasis on legal ad vice; and secrecy of informants at the Social Security Appeal Authority.

Winz has huge power over those it deals with, but in my experience it often displays little compassion. Many Winz staff display considerable arrogance in refusing to return phone calls or respond to letters from beneficiaries, advocate groups and lawyers.

This attitude results in considerable inefficiency. In many cases issues could be resolved easily and speedily if staff would speak either to beneficiaries or their representatives.

For example, I act for a client whose file I requested from Winz on December 22, 1998. Winz alleged the client had not been entitled to the domestic purposes benefit and had to repay about $10,000. I could not give the client legal advice till I had seen Winz's evidence supporting its claim.

I wrote four more letters to Winz and had several telephone conversations with two different staff members but could not get the file. I finally received it on March 25, 1999, two days after advising Winz that I had complained to the privacy commissioner and the ombudsman.

The file did not disclose enough evidence to support Winz's contention that my client was not entitled to the dpb. But four months later it is only now being looked at by a Winz lawyer.

Winz has not accepted my repeated offers to sit down and sort out the matter, and my client has had to prepare for a benefit review committee bearing and face the possibility of going to the Social Security Appeal Authority.

Winz staff frequently fail to tell people about all the help they are entitled to. If beneficiaries do not know the exact benefit to ask for, they may not get it. Sometimes I get the impression that Winz staff think the money is coming out of their own pockets.

I believe there needs to be a review of the operation of benefit review committee hearings. These are held if a beneficiary does not accept a decision made by Winz in relation to a benefit. However, the committees are not independent. They comprise one community representative and two Winz representatives.

The committee may have had no legal input and does not give reasons for its decisions. This means that the law may not be applied in the decision process. I believe it should be a requirement for files to be reviewed by a Winz solicitor before the benefit review committee hearing.

But legal advice is not accepted as definitive by Winz. The case officer and manager decide whether a case should proceed. I acted in one case where it was plain on the law that Winz could not support its contention that my client was not entitled to a benefit.

There was no legal input before the benefit review committee bearing, and the committee gave no reasons for its decision. I therefore had no idea on what that decision was based.

I then lodged an appeal at the Social Security Appeal Authority. The Winz solicitor advised Winz not to proceed with the case, but the manager and investigator were determined to. The authority accepted my view that my client had been entitled to the benefit.

This whole process took well over a year and was extremely traumatic and time consuming for my client. She feared she was going to be sent to prison and ended up on medication.

If Winz had taken legal advice at the outset and acted on it, the issue could have been resolved very quickly.

I am also concerned that Winz is allowed to keep secret the names of people who dob in beneficiaries. There appears to be little consideration given to evaluating whether tip-offs might simply be malicious and have no factual foundation. Investigative work is in some cases completely inadequate.

At the Social Security Appeal Authority I am not entitled to find out who the informant is and therefore cannot raise issues relating to motive.

I have had the Kafkaesque situation at the authority of an informant, whose identity I knew, failing to appear to give evidence. I could not cross-examine him, and the whole exercise was like shadow-boxing.

Beneficiaries should not have to prove that they are not guilty of fraud. It should be for Winz to prove its case to the legal standard.