www.oocities.org/ubinz/press/1999C03HeraldMaclennanWinz.html

Dialogue, NZ Herald, 3 December 1999

The new Government is to con duct an inquiry into the operation of Work and Income New Zealand. Prime Minister-elect Helen Clark says the review will be broad, focusing on the management culture and practices of Winz.

These are extremely encouraging words for beneficiaries, advocates and others dealing frequently with Winz. A wide-ranging review should be carried out as a matter of urgency and should deal with five key areas.

The first priority should be an examination of the culture of Winz and its immediate replacement with mission statements and goals recognising that a main function of the agency is to ensure that beneficiaries receive all the income support to which they are legally entitled.

There should be a change of attitude from the top down, so that staff see their job as being to assist people. They should be required to return phone calls, respond to letters and keep in touch with beneficiaries.

This seems glaringly obvious, but is unfortunately not the case. The prevailing culture at Winz appears to treat those seeking help with suspicion, automatically assuming that they are out to cheat the system.

The worst example was the "dob in a beneficiary" campaign, which encouraged the public to spy on beneficiaries and to tell tales anonymously. It is to be hoped that we will never again see such a campaign.

It is common for women seeking to escape from violent partners to be "dobbed in" by the men, and the attitude of Winz appears to be that these people are guilty until proved innocent.

We deal every day in our law centre with beneficiaries and people entitled to income support. It is my invariable practice now to check what benefits they are getting, and write a letter to Winz on their behalf if necessary. Sadly, it is now almost necessary for people to have an advocate to deal successfully with the agency.

Winz staff frequently fail to tell people about all the help to which they are entitled, and beneficiaries may miss out on money if they do not know the exact name of the benefit or supplementary assistance for which they qualify. Surely it should be the job of Winz staff to know those things and to tell them to the people they deal with.

It is not our experience that beneficiaries are cheats. Rather, they are desperate and stressed people and families who have fallen on hard times. Some of them are extremely reluctant even to approach Winz, believing this means they have failed to provide for their families.

Secondly, the benefit review committee process should be overhauled. A hearing is held if a beneficiary does not accept a decision by Winz. However, the committees are not independent. They consist of one community representative and two Winz representatives.

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

Thirdly, staff need to be educated about the law and should be required to apply it. I was involved in a case which went to the Social Security Appeal Authority simply because the law was not applied at an earlier stage.

The Winz solicitor advised the agency not to proceed with the case but the manager and investigator were determined to go ahead. The authority accepted my view that the client had been entitled to the benefit. If the agency had accepted legal advice at the outset, a great deal of time and immense trauma to the client could easily have been avoided.

Fourthly, benefit fraud investigations should be required to be carried out to acceptable standards. Beneficiaries can be accused and charged on the basis of grossly inadequate background work by Winz.

Finally, the law relating to domestic purposes benefit entitlements should be reviewed. Women seeking to escape violent relationships but unable to compel their violent partners to stay away, are finding them selves brought before the criminal courts because the rules are far too rigid.

The woman may leave the man and start receiving a benefit. The man may insist on moving back in and coerce her into continuing to accept the benefit while refusing to let her work or to provide money for the family.

However, under the present law no steps are ever taken against the men. Instead, the victims are doubly punished. In the end, it is the children who suffer if their mothers are sent to jail or deductions are taken from the family income to recoup the benefit.

We saw a mother several months ago whose family had fallen on hard times. They had never been on a benefit and were out of work through circumstances beyond their control. I wrote to Winz asking for emergency benefit assistance and gave the woman $100 for some food and a doctor.

I did not ask for the money to be repaid, but I knew that as soon as she had money, she would return the $100. A few months later, I received $100 in the mail.

That is the way in which the overwhelming majority of hard-working people who temporarily need benefit help behave.

They are not cheats and that is why Winz needs to be speedily overhauled so people receive the help to which they are entitled.