Home page

BENEFIT REVIEW COMMITTEE - A BIG JOKE!

Part 0ne

Chairman of BRC laughing at beneficiaries

I have stated many times that the Benefit Review Committee is a farce, it is a joke and a disgrace to the ideal of justice and fair play.

There is one man in particular who sits on most panels as a Community Representative (in the Manawatu area). His name is Rae Bell. He is in his 60's and has been on the BRC panel for years. The reason being is that he hates beneficiaries, regards them as bludgers and no hoper's.

WINZ bosses love him and pay him very well to deny beneficiaries their entitlements.

Mr Bell said at a recent hearing that his job was to make sure that “the communities interests came first”. By that he meant that persons who are 100% disabled should remain living in poverty and ill health all their lives even though there is provision in legislation which provides assistance for these disadvantaged ones by way of funding to ensure their comfort, security, health and well being.

Mr Bell should be taken off the Benefit Review Committee and put in jail.

Many New Zealanders are denied their legislative entitlements - Natural Justice - because the Ministry of Social Development allows the farcical decisions of BRC's given by WINZ employees and community reps. such as Rea Bell.

However, there may be some hope. Below is new legislation.

Its about time

part one

Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal

Reform) Amendment Bill

Member’s Bill

Explanatory note

General Policy Statement

Background

The purpose of this Bill is to make modifications to the benefit review and appeal provisions under the Social Security Act 1964 to ensure the review and appeal provisions operate fairly and independently of the Government Ministry responsible for the administration of that Act.

The benefit review regime that currently operates with regard to decisions, other than medical decisions, provides for a Benefits Review Committee that consists of one member appointed by the Minister of Social Development and two members who are staff members of the Ministry of Social Development.

The perception among beneficiaries of that Benefits Review Committee structure is one of bias in favour of the Ministry of Social Development. That perception has been reinforced by the recent Supreme Court judgment Arbuthnot v Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income. Prior to the Arbuthnot judgment it had been widely understood that Benefits Review the Benefits Review Committees’ functions are purely administrative. Committees performed a quasi judicial function. However, the Supreme Court in Arbuthnot has found that Beneficiaries therefore often wait well in excess of six months before the correctness of an adverse primary decision of the Ministry of Social Development can be independently considered by the Social Security Appeal Authority. Given that beneficiaries are often wholly reliant upon the Ministry to meet their day-to-day living expenses. Such a delay in providing an independent judicial reconsideration of an adverse decision is unacceptable.

The quality of decisions made by Benefits Review Committees has historically been widely criticized by beneficiary advocacy groups and, on occasion, by the Social Security Appeal Authority.

Benefits Review Committee decisions are frequently issued without adequate reasons for them being stated.

Benefits Review Committee decisions also frequently rely on the Ministry of Social Development’s policy, rather than comply with the statutory requirements of the Social Security Act 1964.

Medical Appeal Boards currently hear appeals by benefit applicants for child disability allowance, invalids benefit, sickness benefit and veteran’s pension against decisions made on medical grounds.

Medical Appeal Boards have been subject to much criticism for their failure to operate a fair procedure that complies with the principles of natural justice. This is compounded by there being no right of appeal under the Social Security Act 1964 against a Medical Appeal Board decision.

The complexity of the Social Security Act 1964 results in beneficiaries frequently engaging advocates or solicitors to represent them at reviews and appeals. However, there is currently no provision in the Social Security Act 1964 for costs to be awarded in favor of successful review applicants. While there is provision for cost to be

awarded in favor of successful appellants to the Social Security Appeal Authority, this power has traditionally been exercised sparingly by the Authority. Three undesirable consequences flow from these inadequacies in the current legislation:

• Highly skilled advocates therefore often work for little or no remuneration.

• Beneficiaries who can least afford legal representation become indebted to solicitors.

• Beneficiaries inadequately represent themselves at review and appeal hearings.

The Social Security Act 1964 does not currently provide a specified manner for Ministry of Social Development staff to convey decisions to benefit applicants or beneficiaries. This results in decisions often being conveyed inadequately, and without notifying applicants of the right to review decisions with which they disagree.

cont....BRC - part two