Why is the Government paying benefits to those who have left the country?

About 7400 are no longer receiving benefits after failing to reapply for their benefit after 12 months and the government is saying it is a $3.5m saving. ( update its a $9.5m saving now ). According to media reports:

Half of the people who were now off it did not reapply. Of the other half, 2000 were already in work, 1400 had left the county, were in study or failed the work test.

We don’t have any idea how many were studying or how many failed the work test as the Prime Minister didn’t say and nobody appeared to ask him.

But a lot of people must have been were getting benefits they were not entitled to - like the 1400 who had left the country, and WINZ apparently had no idea that they had left the country. It’s their job to have an idea.

If thousands didn’t reapply, should they have been getting it at all? Some were in work, some had left the country. If they had left the country three months earlier, who is the benefit being paid to before it is cancelled? If they were in work, are the overpayments going to be recovered?

In such cases, while WINZ should be told if there are changes that affect benefits, shouldn’t case managers be keeping tabs on their ”clients” to ensure they are paying correct entitlements, and cutting off benefits shortly after they go to work/overseas – not months later.

John Key said it could be assumed that the people who did not reapply were in work. Yet he has no idea how many of those who did not reapply were in prison, studying, formed a new relationship, or had left the country.

So this is not a $3.5m (or $9m) “saving” – this is merely $3.5m saving less overspending, less an undisclosed amount of unrecovered overpayments paid before the benefits were cancelled.

More about → Why is the Government paying benefits to those who have left the country?

Our hungry kids - and our selfish parents

Was watching this programme on Campbell Live where a beneficiary on $529 a week was spending not much more than $100 a week on food and didn’t have enough to feed his three kids. He didn’t send them to school some days because he couldn’t give them lunch as he had no food.

Yet not all parents who fail to give their kids breakfast are that hard up. I have kids. They get breakfast every day. They go to school and come home and tell me that many of their classmates don’t have breakfast.

It’s not that their parents can’t afford to give their kids breakfast, it’s just that they leave for work at 7.30am and drop their kids off to school and don’t want to get up earlier to give their kids breakfast.

So the kids miss out. And the parents no doubt have breakfast at work. This is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that schools have to feed these kids when their parents either get Working for Families payments or are earning enough to get them over the cut-off threshold.

For parents who are on low incomes, it’s tough. Its even tougher on a benefit. But you can feed your kids porridge at about $50 every three months if you buy it in bulk. The biggest cost is the milk. If parents don’t want to do this for their kids to ensure they don’t miss out on breakfast – it’s called budgeting - there is something wrong with them. For those on benefits you can get a food grant from WINZ which will pay for nine month’s worth of porridge.

Kids should not go hungry because of parent’s poor choices. But they do. It is those parents who don’t have a choice that should get the assistance – such as the man on Campbell Live. Because he deserves it. In fact, if a lot more parents cared for their kids like this dad does,and fed their kids breakfast before work, our kids would be better off. But this man didn't appear to be applying for the assistance that is available from WINZ. He should.

And he doesn't eat porridge. But he does both need and deserve more support - and its good that he is getting it.

But none of it is from the government - its to make up for his substandard benefit income.

He even got a heater to heat his house. I'm so pleased.

More about → Our hungry kids - and our selfish parents

Anyone got any info on this?

If a person is getting ACC, and ACC decided that, as that person could work 30 hours a week they were no longer entitled to ACC, they’d be removed from the scheme.

So what if that person gets assessed by Work and Income as not being fit for work for 15 hours a week . He is eligible for the Invalids Benefit. The person goes on the Invalids benefit, and because WINZ has said he can’t work, he appeals the ACC decision that says he could ( at least, appeals the decision regarding accident related injuries. But he loses, because ACC’s doctors say he can work 30 hours a week, even though WINZ doctors say he can’t.

And what does this say about the ACC review process? The problem is that it is pretty hard to get information on these transfers as ACC has no details on what their former claimants end up, and WINZ have few details on where their Invalids beneficiaries were prior to going on an Invalids Benefit. This could be because many are initially transferred to the Invalids Benefit from the Sickness Benefit with no reference to having recently come off ACC.

I wonder how many people have been in this situation during the past five years? And how many are now being quickly transferred to Sickness Benefits to get assessed for part time work?

More about →

Pushing those on the DPB to work

The NZ Herald reports:

A sole parent with three young children paying the $332 average rent for a three-bedroom house in Papakura would get $206 in family support and $165 in accommodation supplement on top of the $278 DPB, a total of $649 a week.

Lets assume that she could walk straight into a job.

What would happen if she got a job for 25 hours a week at $20 per hour, or $500 per week – by no means the minimum hourly rate.

Firstly, because she is working more than 20 hours, she'd get the in work tax credit. She’d get $500 ($407 net) a week in income. Her family support will be the same, her accommodation supplement would reduce just $5.00. But the $60 In work Tax Credit bumps up her income to $833.00 - an extra $184.00 per week .

Sounds good. But even if she get 20 hours free, she`ll still be paying at least $180 a week in childcare and after school care, assuming she has two preschoolers at the right age and one child who is at school - leaving her nothing extra to pay for transport to get to work and clothes to wear to work.

Would you work for about $1.00 extra an hour? If so, what would you do if your child gets sick? What would you do if you cant get 20 hours free childcare because your childcare centre doesn't offer it or your kids are the wrong age?

If she got a job for $17.50 an hour for a 40 hour week - that’s $700 ($562 net) - she`d get $110.00 accommodation supplement and the same WFF assistance – totalling $878.00. That is $229 extra than the benefit and allowances.

Even better. But after child care costs, an income of $36,400 would leave her less than $50.00 extra to pay for transport to get to work and clothes to wear to work.

More about →

Was Foster even entitled to an advance?

Graham Foster's story in the Sunday Star Timesdoesn't tell the full story. He was refused a Work and Income grant to pay for a $50 pullover and a $140 pair of shoes. Instead he got an advance for the amount which he has to pay back at $3.00 per week. Any advances are supposed to be paid back within a 52 week period. But not this one. Still, Foster spent two years fighting the government through the courts, costing the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

The Benefit Review Committee decision of 2008 appears to be here, and was itself appealed. (The Court of Appeal's recent decision is here). Foster wanted a lump sum non recoverable payment and reviewed a decision to advance the payment. His excuse for applying for these items was that his old jersey had a hole in it and as he sometimes suffered from mild bronchitis he didn't want to catch a chill. He said he needed to wear specially constructed inner soles and good quality shoes and he said he needed to purchase Hush Puppy shoes " that better fitted the odd contours of my feet".

His budget indicated a deficiency of income over expenditure of $49.98 per week - and budgeted more than $87 a week on food . That's in 2008. We have four in our family and don't even spend double that each week. He also brought the Listener each week instead of reading it at the library for free. Although he wanted free shoes, the Social Security Appeal Authority noted that there is no specific provision in the Special Needs Grant programme for shoes. As Foster admitted that the items were needed due to to wear and tear, this was not an "emergency" as it was not unforseen. Clothes are expected to wear out, eventually. The authority said:

We are surprised to note that the appellant spends [$30 - inserted] per week on communication, apparently for cellphone, internet and fixed line charges. This seems particularly high for someone sharing accommodation. The appellant has not explained what his need for a cellphone might be. An allowance of $15.00 per week ought to be sufficient for telecommunications. We also have questions about the appellant's allowance for transport, optometrist and newspapers. It is surprising that the appellant can afford to buy the Listener and pay for an internet connection but cannot budget for [shoes]. We are not convinced that the appellant has a deficiency in his budget of $49.98 per week. We accept that the appellant's budget is tight but we consider that the appellant could have been expected to make provision for [shoes] in his budget.We are not satisfied on the basis of the evidence available that an emergency situation existed in this instance

But they did think it was fine for him to get an advance payment, even though he was able to make provision for it. In other words, the Committee considered that as Foster had an "immediate and essential need" he should be given a loan for the shoes and jersey, even though no emergency situation existed, and WINZ had no idea if he needed them because they apparently didn't ask if he had other jerseys and shoes he could wear.

So how did they know that Foster had an immediate and essential need?

More about →

Some beneficiaries to get more money to study

Those receiving the Domestic Purposes Benefit, Widow’s Benefit, Invalid’s Benefit or Emergency Maintenance Allowance will soon be able to get an extra $500 of recoverable assistance - but only if they study as nurses, doctors, midwives, vets and teachers.

Putting aside the unlikelihood of an invalids beneficiary studying as a doctor, wouldn't it be better to get the maximum allotment of food grants instead? They are not recoverable either. I wonder how many will be studying and getting the $500, and not get any food grants because they don't apply for them when finances are tight.

More about →

Off the dole - and back into WINZ

National is recruiting staff off the benefit and into case management because too many people are becoming unemployed. Of the extra 300 staff, 206 are to be focussed on "finding jobs" and the rest are going to be answering phones. Could that mean they are going to be case managers or work brokers. Because case managers are not focused on finding people jobs, they are focused on paying people money.

Last year there was hardly one work broker per WINZ Office. And those answering phones merely put people through to answerphones or make appointments for case managers. Ever tried to ring a case manager that actually picks up the phone? Case managers have appointments wall to wall every day. They are over-worked, under-trained, over-stressed and under-valued.

But most of those who are employed will not be focusing on finding jobs, as the media claims. They will be focusing on putting people into short term courses and the like - and some will be irrelevant courses that most beneficiaries will not want to go on, and will not benefit from.

More about →

I worked hard, but I may lose my home

*** what do Labour's researchers do? ***
updated
Bruce Burgess lost his $750 per week job in the recession and was turned away from WINZ because his partner worked part time. She earns $21,000 a year. WINZ turned them away,and so they wrote to their MP who so happens to be the Prime Minister.

When he got the letter he reportedly flicked it off to Paula Bennett's office who did nothing.Then the Labour Party found out about it. Instead of checking the Burgess' entitlements and assisting them, Labour told the NZ Herald who wrote this story. On the surface, it needs to be fixed up because it is appalling.I spoke with the reporter early this afternoon and told him that the family is entitled to a partial benefit.

If they are earning just $21,000, WINZ was wrong to turn them away. They are entitled to register as job seekers through WINZ and are entitled to $91.20 a week in an unemployment benefit as well as possibly an accommodation supplement to assist them with their mortgage. Couldn't the Herald find that out? Depending on their mortgage they may be entitled to further assistance. I've relayed that info on to Keys office.

Given that Labour leaked this story, I'm wondering if its pixie researchers do any research. It's latest media release says that Burgess' wife's income disqualifies the couple from any temporary access to the unemployment benefit.

That's false. And Labour now know it.

update Burgess claims to own several properties, but is not receiving income from them. And I see that John Key has relayed the above in Parliament, and while I was doing this post the Herald updated its story. I spoke with the journalist and requested he do so because the facts of the story were incorrect given entitlement of a benefit on $21k.

update2 And Labour knew all along that the Burgesses owned multiple properties but apparently never told the Herald.

more here.

More about →

Phil Goff's idiotic idea

Phil Goff wants the dole paid to people made redundant due to the recession even if their partners are working. He wants partners income to be disregarded in means testing.

To pay the full unemployment benefit to partnered redundant workers, the whole benefit system would need to be revamped as when an unemployed person with a non-earning partner gets the benefit, half the benefit is paid to the partner, and half to the unemployed person.

Here's what could happen within the current system: A person is made redundant. She earned $35,000 a year - about $670 a week - and does not live with her partner, who has the four children and earns $80,000. Both have separate bank accounts. Instead of getting the dole as at present, the couple move in together. Both get the dole, as the benefit payment is split between partners and into each bank account, and the newly unemployed woman no longer has to pay child support. Good idea, they think. As she is unemployed, Working for Families payments are paid through WINZ. If WINZ do not note the partner's income - because that will abate the benefit instead of waiving it - WINZ would also pay Working for Families payments - as she now has the kids - and the accommodation supplement to pay for the high mortgage.

They'd get about $500.00 extra each week. On top of that, if the unemployed person's bank balance went below a certain threshold, she could get food grants and advances to pay power bills as WINZ disregard the income of her partner.

A nice little earner to ride over the recession. And no childcare to pay too as the unemployed man can look after the kids while his wife works and collects the benefit.

But there's a downside to this arrangement. Guess what it is.

More about →

Not exactly a luxurious life

I wouldn’t get too concerned that the government is planning to stick 7000 unemployed people into McDonalds. The scheme is over a five years period, equating to 26 per week on average. That is if the 7000 figure is reached. What if they only get 4000 into McDonalds – that’s about 15 per week.

And that is about how many people are being employed at McDonalds every week anyway, due to the high staff turnover. But this deal is not driven by a desire to get people work. It is driven by a desire not to pay so much money on benefits, as John Key explains:

When we spend a lot on benefits it means there are a lot of New Zealanders not really earning a lot. Life on a benefit is not exactly a luxurious life.

When lots of people work at McDonalds, it means there are a lot of New Zealanders not really earning a lot. Working at McDonalds is not exactly a luxurious life.

What if they were to offer a McDonalds fulltime position - 30 hours a week in WINZ language - to a main unemployed breadwinner with children? If they were to get $15.00 an hour, they`d get $450 a week ($23,400 a year), compared with a benefit payment of $18,850 a year before tax. That's an extra $87.50 a week.

Beneficiaries can earn $80.00 each week and retain the benefit. Effectively squared up. But the person in this example will be spending money on transport to get to work so he is worse off by working at McDonalds.

Would you do it?

More about →

Pay rises for the sick, who just get sicker

The Dom Post has a story on the blowout in numbers of drug and alcohol addicts recieving sickness and invalids benefits. This has been a problem for years. Those on the sickness and unemployment benefits get $219.25, and if you transfer to the invalids benefit - as many are doing - you get $277.50. That's more than students get.

The problem is that the 5279 on such benefits because of these problems are not required to get treatment. However they can be put on literacy and numeracy programmes but Work and Income isn't bothering to do this, either. Wouldn't it be better puttting the extra $52.25 into drug and alcohol rehab for these people instead?

We have a classic " I am confident" comment from the Minister

However, Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson said she was confident that programmes such as Paths (Providing Access to Health Solutions) ensured alcohol- and drug-affected beneficiaries got the treatment they needed

This is despite giving National MP Judith Collins the miniscule numbers, that majority who are not hard druggies, but have ill health or disabilities, or are stressed or depressed. And in the very next sentence, the report explains that they are not getting the treatment they need.

Ms Reade said case managers could not force beneficiaries into treatment programmes.

That's not the issue. They don't even have to encourage them to get treatment either. PATHS doesn't even assist drug and alcohol abusers unless they are stressed or depressed, and many who exit a benefit after PATHS go back on the benefit. It's more likely to give people gym memberships or physiotherapy.

Until compulsory intervention of drug use is introduced, we taxpayers will continue to divert money which could be used to reduce hospital and Court waiting lists and provide road maintenance, into keeping these people in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

And on a side issue, the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis party has today put out a call for candidates. Perhaps they should put up posters at Work and Income offices.

More here: Why can't WINZ force druggies to get treatment

More about →

WINZ Deputy Chief Executive stretches truth in Dominion Post

Patricia Reade, Deputy Chief Executive of Work and Income stated in a letter to the Dominion Post this week that there is no link between the number receiving an unemployment benefit, and a sickness or invalids benefit.

She felt the need to do that because a former staff member pointed out that there was indeed a link and people were going to the doctor claiming depression so as to go on sickness and invalids benefits. Unfortunately for Ms Reade, most of the figures of benefit transfers are in the public arena, and nearly a quarter of new applications for the Sickness and Invalids Benefits are made by people already recieving a main benefit.

Of those who were on an Unemployment Benefit last year, 193 transferred to the Invalids benefit and massive 8579 transferred to the Sickness Benefit. That’s just last year. Of those who were on a Sickness Benefit, 5968 transferred to the Invalids benefit, including probably some of the ones that were transferred from the Unemployment Benefit earlier in the year, hence the link to the Unemployment Benefit. That’s the highest amount since 2002. Fewer than 300 transferred the other way off the Invalids benefit.

So now we have a little bit of an idea as to why the Invalids Benefit numbers have increased. For Ms Reade to say that there is no link is simply untruthful. Even her own Ministry does not agree with her. From the Ministry’s research:

Through disillusion with their prospects as job seekers, or as a result of being moved by the employment services or by benefit administrators, [people] progressively moved on to incapacity-related benefits.

More about →

WINZ breaks law when getting drunk drivers' cars back

The Ministry of Social Development appears to be breaking its own law in allowing payments to be approved to get cars back after being impounded due to drivers' unlawful activity.

Judith Collins was questioning Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson about why beneficiaries can get aassistance after their car has been impounded for drunk driving. Dyson said beneficiaries can get an advance payment of their benefit or a special-needs grant if

they have an immediate and essential need. Work and Income staff will consider all the circumstances, including the effect of the situation on the person’s family or children, whether the person himself or herself can afford to pay, and whether the person will be able to afford the repayments.

Sounds fair. They need to get their car back and can't afford to. But Dyson conveniently missed one vital bit of information out, and nobody appeared to notice.

The Chief Executive may consider the extent to which the Applicant has caused or contributed to the .. situation that has given rise to the particular immediate need.

I would have thought that if the police impound a car because a person was drunk behind the wheel, then the applicant contributed to the situation by breaking the law and driving over the limit, and that the Ministry should take that into acount.

Do you?

More about →

National leader's speech

John Key's speech aiming to get all young people into work, training or education and off crime is noble.

I do have some reservations about the Fresh Start policy ( perhaps in another post) and could comment extensively about the speech but for this post I want to focus on youth training. The training announcement by Key is grounded in Labour policy like Gateway- but also extends to kids out of school, and funds the private sector to a greater extent with tougher sanctions. I suggest you read the speech.

Under the Youth Guarantee, National will provide a universal, no-cost education entitlement for all 16- and 17-year-olds so they can access school-level educational study at approved institutions. Most will remain at school, but some won't.

Labour has a similar training policy with sanctions - but its policy, in terms of targeting 16-17 year olds into training or work, is restricted to the 3125 regtistered with WINZ - and sanctions aren't applied enough and therefore there is no consequence for non compliance. And they don`t include Polytechs or Wananga.

Independant Youth Beneficiaries do not live with their parents, nor do they receive financial support from anyone. If they are in a training course that course must be less than 12 weeks or they don't qualify. Many criminals of that age live with their parents or are financially supported in other ways - so they are ineligible for the IYB and therefore not exposed to courses available from Work and Income even though they are entitled to be. These people should be registered as job seekers through WINZ and referred to such courses without going on the benefit. Legislation and allows for this such people are turned away by WINZ.

Why? Because Labour is neither enforcing or publicising current policies. National is broadening Labours policy with indications that it will be better implemented and enforced - and hopefully better publicised. Key's policy includes the 8,400 16 and 17 year olds who are not in work, education or training.

That means that most of those who are not in work, education or training are not receiving a benefit, primarily because they live with their parents - or are not sick, invalid or have kids themselves. These kids can enrol as job seekers with WINZ and access training schemes - but they don't - because WINZ doesn`t tell them to.

Some of these kids are so illiterate they cant fill in forms for the WINZ courses - so they need literacy and numeracy skills. There are no real sanctions for WINZ teens who don't turn up to these courses once referred.That's the real issue. It will be interesting to see how National will stop this pattern - and how teens who are currently not at work, training, education or recieving a benefit will be captured.

However, it's a better policy than Labour's - way better. If I had a 16 year old, who didn`t want to go to school, I`d rather he or she went to a Government funded polytech course than a TOPS course or rather than having to pay school fees, uniforms, and donations.

More about →

WINZ Case Manager pays beneficiary "under the table"

I know of a person who is on a benefit. This person is looking for a job and told me that a Case Manager at WINZ thought that their section could do with a bit of a spruce up and is paying this beneficary to do it for a few days.

Now I don't have a problem with beneficiaries earning money on the benefit, as long as they declare it. But it seems a bit dodgy to me that a WINZ staffer is offering this person a cash job which will no doubt not be declared to his benefit, and he is not paying tax on it either.

More about →