Articles and Stories

Tricky-Dickey Stuff

Everything hereto are my opinions, views, and experiences over twelve years of constant battle with Work and Income NZ (New Zealand Income Support Services as it was once known). These views and opinions are expressed pursuant to and under the protection of the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

Preamble

Many New Zealand families include a disabled person. But if an immediate family member is not disabled then there is a likely hood that a cousin, aunt, or nephew is disabled and requires day to day supervision. By that I mean the disabled person is dependent upon others for support. This is the situation with my wife Sheryl, who suffers from Resinual Schizophrenia - no motivation.

She is solely dependent upon the State for all her financial needs and is dependent upon myself for her day to day care and in home treatment.

Work and Income NZ's primary purpose has been to save the government money by disadvantaging the disadvantaged; by ensuring as many persons as possible who require assistance over and above the basic benefit - a sickness or invalid's benefit - are refused the help needed to cope better with their disability.

Rarely has Work and Income's cleverly designed ploys to deny sick and disabled persons their legal and medical entitlements been brought into the light of public observation and debate. Newspapers are loathe to print cases in point - probably because every page of the newspaper would be filled with stories of Work and Income's appalling denial of assistance to disabled people.

This is evidenced by the many thousands of deserving people who, through no fault of their own, are forced to live in a state of paucity until they die. It is an indictment on the New Zealand government which has clearly given its approval to Work and Income NZ to employ all sorts of trick-dickey stuff to ensure disabled persons remain in poverty, and as a consequence they remain destitute, unhappy, and almost none recover from their ailment.

It is a fact that most disabled people who approach Work and Income for assistance do not get their entitlements. Pam Corkery, just after leaving parliament, said that the response from Work and Income to a beneficiary's request for assistance was similar to "walking through a minefield." How true.

Most people who approach Work and Income for assistance and are knocked back for some reason will often never apply again. They feel too humiliated or believe that they have done all within their power to obtain help, and failed. They remain living in deficient dwelling's and unhealthy circumstances because Work and Income NZ refused to give them assistance. Often, the reason for refusing assistance is not valid, but the beneficiary is unaware of this because he is ignorant of those allowances and grants to which he is entitled., and the criteria under which they are granted. The money saved in this manner is given to WINZ employees by way of bonus's. (where else could bonus money come from). No wonder staff deny assistance to disabled persons at every opportunity.

Government's encourages this 'dog eat dog' culture. Darren Hughes, a 26 year old Labour Member of Parliament for Horowhenua, reflects this attitude. The message I received from his secretary a couple of weeks ago, and from Mr Hughes during two interviews, was that legislation means nothing where disability entitlements are concerned. Misleading statements, diversionary tactics, in fact anything to ensure that legislation which makes provision for assistance; are not followed.

There is ample provision in legislation to enable disabled persons to live with dignity, comfort, security and happiness. However, to ensure this does not become a reality for disabled persons Work and Income bosses are constantly revising their coggery and unwritten policies in order to deny assistance to the disabled. For too long thousands of deserving people have been refused essential financial help. Each passing day a disabled person is 'thrown out' of a WINZ office without the assistance he had hoped for, and which he should have received.

Work and Income NZ was not set up to assist needy persons, rather it has been created for the primary purpose of denying as many people as possible access to legislation which confirms their financial entitlements. To this end staff are not discouraged from misleading an applicant. And, if necessary, lie to a needy person who dares to approach them for help. The word 'bludger' is the label Work and Income staff attach to all who apply for assistance over and above the meagre basic benefit. From the moment an applicant signs an application for further assistance every conceivable obstacle is placed at the feet of even the most needy to deter them from pursuing their lawful entitlement. Read on.

The Lie - “Though your disability and other costs have increased you cannot continue to receive assistance.....you have had three reviews....that is all we can do”.

New Case Manager

My previous Case Manager, Hina, had been transferred so a new one was allotted. Being a foolish optimist I hoped that the new one would be a man of principles. He was in charge of the Super Department. I expected this WINZ employee to be pro-active in assisting myself, a new Superannuate, and Sheryl, my 63 year old wife to receive all that we were entitled.

The annual review was due and as I sat before this slight, bespectacled 47 year old, the subject of an Accommodation Supplement arose. A few days earlier I had handed Mr Dixon the receipts for over $5600 worth of repairs and maintenance. He looked them over and said, “The receipt for the weed mat is not valid”. “I just put them with all the other receipts” I replied.

We had had a Acc/Supplement for several years, but because we had paid off our mortgage a few months before, the Mortgage payments were no longer a valid accommodation cost. As a result our remaining accommodation costs did not meet the $115 a week threshold before entitlement to Accommodation Supplement can be considered. Therefore the $55 a week (maximum for our area) no longer applied, so it was cancelled.

His manner clearly suggested that his intention was to deny Sheryl and I an Accommodation Supplement. To do this he would have to refuse to include enough of the receipt value to ensure the $115 threshold was not achieved.

I asked him what constituted an accommodation cost. His reply:

“It must be for house repairs or maintenance – that is for the structural aspect of the dwelling.”

I informed him the legislation makes no such claim. I mentioned section 61E (b) of the the Social Security Act. 1964. With a show of surprise – that he did not recognise that particular part of the Act – he brought it up on the computer. It reads:

Section 61E. (b) of the Social Security Act 1964

“In relation to premises that are owned by the person, the total amount of all payments including essential repairs and maintenance, local authority rates, and house insurance...”

The key word is 'premises'.

Our valid Accommodation Costs include Rates, water, and a lease which is the land within the surveyed boundaries of the premises – not the house. Water pipes are under the ground or on the premises.

Our rates are to pay for water which is owned by the Council and for the pipes which carry the water on the premises, including in the dwelling. Clearly, Accommodation Costs refer to those structures not just in the house but to those other structures within the boundary of the premises, or property.

The point I make is that here we have an experienced WINZ employee attempting to mislead a superannuate. He is responsible for at least 2000 superannuates in the area. It would be a pretty good bet that he has misled most of them.

back to Articles and Stories

david.taylor1@clear.net.nz