This site is an archived version of Indymedia prior to 5th November 2012. The current site is at www.indymedia.org.nz.

Lively Protest for Beneficiary Rights at Waitakere WINZ

in

Last Friday, December 3rd,  60 people from the  Waitemata branch of the Unite Union,  Auckland Action Against Poverty and their supporters, held a lively demonstration for beneficiaries' rights outside Waitakere WINZ. Friday 3rd December is International Disability Day.

At this time, disabled people's rights are very much under threat. WINZ has been steadily taking people with  long term illnesses and disabilities off the invalids benefit onto other work tested  benefits ,where they lose $50 per week. Sometimes work testing has been as ridiculous as asking a person who cannot use their hands to put a pen in their mouth, or asking a blind person to get a drivers licence.

Benefits have dropped by over fifty per cent in real terms, compared to the minimum wage; since National's 1991 Benefit cuts and urgently need to increase. Poverty is at appalling levels with dreadful outcomes for the health and educational levels of those at the bottom, and their children.

But the National/Act Government and the Welfare Working Group headed by ex-Chamber of Commerce  member Paula  Rebstock are only interested in further cuts. They would like nearly all beneficiaries to be on the extremely low work tested benefits, including mothers with children as young as one.

It was great to see so many there, including representatives from the Auckland Women's Centre, Feminist Action, anarchists, the Green Party, people with disabilities and those working in the disability sector, workers, students , beneficiaries, mothers, grandmothers and pensioners, the National Distribution Union, Socialist Aotearoa, other socialists, and the Unite Union.

Protesters lined both sides of the street with colourful placards and banners, and listened to people speaking on the megaphone. A Christmas present box was handed out from  where lucky people  were able to take envelopes which when opened promised them such xmas gifts as having their power or telephone cut off due to unpaid massively increased bills.
 
After the protest, Waitemata Unite members talked to a large number of WINZ clients who were very interested in the protest and in what our union can do for beneficiaries. Some joined up on the spot and others have expressed interest in keeping in touch with us.
This was a very successful first collaboration between Waitemata Unite and the newly formed Auckland Action Against Poverty, with hopefully many more to come.

For further information see:  http://waitemataunite.blogspot.com/2010/12/international-disability-day.... contact keith: keithhenderson66@gmail.com

Comments

fucking brilliant!!

fucking brilliant!!

whats so brilliant about

whats so brilliant about it?

 

its going to take a hell of alot more than one isolated protest to stop these bastards .....maybe the unthinking fools in this country will wake up next year and vote them out

dude

The article states that this is the first of many more actions to come.  There is nothing isolated about it.  It is also the first action from a newly formed anti poverty group in Auckland in collaboration with Waitemata Unite.

Also, voting Labour will not solve these problems.

Excellent feature

Great stuff, thanks for putting this together

 

I totally support this action and hope there will be more of it!

This is just the start, I hope. Good one to those that turned up and took action! Keep us posted on further activities. With the 'Future Focus' policy the Minister that takes study leave at $ 5000 of her salary per week has shown the true colours of herself and her party.She has certainly forgotten where she comes from, the now apparently "well fed" and "well clothed" Minister.

What should also be raised more is the new stringent approach taken by the Ministry following the policy with an "unrelenting focus on work" and "to look rather what a beneficieary can do than cannot do" resulting in numerous Invalids and Sickness Beneficiaries now being sent for "second opinions" from so-called "designated doctors". There are only just over 100 "designated doctors" countrywide that have been "trained" by the Ministry of Social Development and are forced to follow their undisclosed internal guidelines.

I have seen bizarre and absurd "second opinions" that were totally contrary to the normal GP's or other health practitioners clients see. There is now a general suspicion by WINZ staff that clients on those benefits "harass" their doctors and put them under pressure, which I am sure does only happen in very rare and extreme cases, where a patient and WINZ client may simply see no other way to be heard, when it comes to her or his illness!

The onus is being put onto the ill person to "prove" that she/he is really as ill as doctor's medical certificates state.

Indirectly the Ministry also treats medical practitioners that are not working with them as "designated doctors" as possibly not being competent enough to make the assessments they make. Truth is that NZ has on a percentage basis less invalids and sick on benefits than many other developed countries. The new policies are primarily ideological and cost-driven, ignoring basic human rights and values.

The Ministry does via so-called 'Regional Health Advisors' (whose roles are not even provided for under the Social Security Act 1964 and not transparent) - being "supervised" and guided through a common GP (Dr David Leslie Bratt of Wellington) acting as 'Principal Health Advisor' (who has like the Minister an absolute work-focus for beneficiaries) enforce on Case Managers the new policies and increased involvement of designated doctors.

 

The system that was actually already implemented by the Labour led government in 2007 and 2008 is like a "shadowy" structure in the back, that is not transparent to the public, is not supported or covered by the Act and performs tasks in a very questionable manner. Practically the approach appears to be policy and ideology driven. This government now makes greater use of this parallel system to the ordinary and legally accepted system and structure of Work and Income and the Ministry of Social Development. They are operating on very thin ice!

The only way to address any issues with a decision by a designated doctor is by taking the matter to a so-called 'Medical Appeal Board' (which according to Ministry reports in 2006/2007 only heard about 200 appeals in that year).

I can only encourage as many persons as possible that are affected under the new regime to object to findings and take matters to an appeal hearing.

Because the Act itself is very flawed (see details in a private members bill by Sue Bradford presented to Parliament on 19 August 2009 that was rejected by this government) even the appeal process is contrary to principles of natural law and the rule of law, same as against provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993 and the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 - due to being discriminatory against the rights of sick and disabled!

Under section 53 A of the Social Security Act 1964 it is stated that no person has the right to further appeal against a decision made by a Medical Appeal Board (which usually also has "hand picked medical practitioners and/or disability professionals). It is final and binding. According to section 12J of the act it also states that no review or appeal can be taken to a Social Security Review Authority on medical grounds!

At present an application for Judicial Review is being prepared to be presented to the High Court.

It is going to address these very matters and problems and has chance to succeed, thus making invalid a recently disputed decision by a Medical Appeal Board.

It is good to take action and protest, but more is needed, and by challenging decisions by Work and Income, the Ministry and bodies or persons it employs and over-sees by legal means should put additional pressure on the Ministry, which acts outside the law and gets away with it, because few bother to examine legal implications due to not being informed and financial to take such actions.

So take action on various levels and expose the big policy fraud that goes on and denies affected people the very basic rights they have!

That is a very well thought

That is a very well thought out and researched plan of attack. That information about the "shadow" structure you mentioned above needs to be publicised as much and as noisily as possible.

You're right - just pass on the info to as many as possible!

You're right - just pass on the info to as many as possible!

Challenge every staff member and manager of Work and Income on this, do NOT accept their politically correct and fluffy explanations of little substance, seek reviews for every questionable step taken by them and thus jam and block their whole system of suppression and intimidation.

Once the requests for review pile up, the committees hearing them are overwhelmed, the Social Security Appeal Authority cannot handle the challenges before them, the Medical Appeal Board is unable to hear all the cases of appeal raised and sought to be resolved, they will look like real idiots.

All this will cost an immense amount of money and more than they will ever be able to "save" on the back of the affected!

They are still bound by rules of law and the statute (where it applies within natural law and in line with Human Rights Act and Bill of Rights Act)!

That is my message, and I will - like many affected - take more action.

Awesome comment Radical!:-)

 

 

I feel that your comments are fantastic, sound and excellent.Im with you.

What do mean "are forced to

What do mean "are forced to follow their undisclosed internal guidelines"?  Surely they're available under the OIA?  Have you asked?

Done so!

An application under the Official Information Act 1982 demanding disclosure of this and of the qualifications of Regional Health Advisors was made.

The latter request was declined due to "privacy concerns" and has thus been referred to the Office of Ombudsmen who are presently investigating.

A repeated request under the same act was made re what you raise and a reply is expected by 17 December 2010.

So far only "fluffy" replies referring to little substantial information were given by way of letter.

Hence we are awaiting more information by the end of the week. If not offered or satisfactory then that will also be referred to the Ombudsman by way of a complaint.

Does one need to go to these lengths though? They talk about transparency but that is not always complied with.

OIA request

That's fine then.  The Office of the Ombudsmen haven't been too crash hot lately, either.  Keep socking it to them.

CERTAINLY WILL!

It is already telling that a manager of Work and Income claims he would not release info about professional qualifications of so-called 'Regional Health Advisers'. Anecdotal evidence is that some are former practicing nurses. A search for a name of a RHA over the Medical Council and Nurses Register brought no results. At least in some cases there must be something dodgy, otherwise they would not try to hide this.

For those that have some doubt about my comments above: Just try to find info re Regional Health Advisors (13 working all over the country), Principal Health Advisor (1 sitting at the Ministry in Wellington), Regional Disability Advisors (13 known of), Principal Disability Advisor (1 acting in this capacity), Health and Disability Coordinators and Dr David Leslie Bratt (PHA) via search engines like Google, Yahoo or else. Also try the WINZ website. You will find rather little substantial information about all these, who do actually engage very actively in advisory, supervisory and decisionmaking roles "behind the scenes".

Also try finding any info about these positions and roles in the Social Security Act. There is NO mention of such positions or roles!

Designated doctors and members sitting on Medical Appeal Boards are all nominated by the Chief Executive - or rather under his delegated authority. So is there perhaps an element of self-interest involved? Think, research and decide!

It should make a few question all this that really goes on.

The RHAs are (mostly)

The RHAs are (mostly) registered nurses who are supposed to only be giving medical advice to case managers. They have no legislated power to make decisions.

That is what they say, BUT ...

That is what they say, BUT ...

The usual practice followed is that Case Managers, who have NO medical knowledge let alone experience, are by their internal working rules (internally viewable via WINZ website) strongly advised to consult Health Advisors and rely on their recommendations! They base their recommendations on selected designated doctor's decisions (following MSD and WINZ guidelines).

That most are registered nursed is something that needs to be established. I am waiting for the information requested under the OIA and the complaint to the Ombudsman to confirm this.

But do you trust the advice of nurses in matters of sometimes complex health issues - particularly if they are involving psychological or psychiatric conditions?

And how can designated doctors being GP's decide about persons with psychiatric conditions and problems, which I know of they are allowed and trusted to decide about in at least some cases. Truth is WINZ and MSD have few psychologists (if any) on their designated doctors list!

These Health Advisors do choose designated doctors from their pool that they present the clients to "pick from". With the limited number of such doctors there are few options, and some involve distant travel. Then these doctors use comments in their decisions that are evidently copied out of the policy guidelines (influenced by the new ideology "unrelented focus on work" and "looking at rather what a client can do than what not") that they are expected to work along.

Do not trust this politically correct talk and many of their statements. Show us the EVIDENCE that there is true transparency and fairness!

That is what I and others would like to challenge WINZ on.

No qualifications?

Hiya,

I've just come across this after Googling "Winz Regional Medical Advisor" after another appalling appointment at Winz Ham East.

Turns out after a year of being on the Sickness Benefit whilst awaiting 3 reviews against ACC, the Regional Medical Advisor (who I had never heard of) has STILL not contacted my GP in regards to my eligibilty for the Invalids Benefit yet Winz decided I was eligible for the Sickness Benefit (don't get me started on my filled out Disability Allowance form my GP did that's been replaced with a blank one on my file!). I went in since my GP outlined on my med cert "Check eligibility for Invalids Benefit" to sit through the process for applying.

Things progressed and I questioned the fact that within the whole year I had been on Winz, why had the Regional Medical Advisor not contacted my GP? I then asked what a Regional Medical Advisor is. Turns out the one for Ham East (possibly Waikato?) has NO QUALIFICATIONS and is trained "like a nurse". When I pointed out that my GP knows a lot about my case but I need a Clinical Psychologist or Psychiatrist to advise on my medical condition and it's being "long-term" or not, the Winz Case Manager started saying "This interview process is now over" and "I require you to leave". No, I wasn't raising my voice but I began to so that she would listen.

Since then, I've received a phone message asking me to return to sign the form that she forgot to get me to do. My support people are on holiday so I had to do it myself (again with my 4yr old in tow) and she tried to ask me to sit with her, clearly seeing I was upset. Apparently the Regional Medical Advisor wants a copy of my ACC psych assessment report, not any report but the particular one being argued in court, they also want to have consent to speak to ACC in regards to the proceedings and it's status. As yet, they still HAVE NOT contacted my GP despite they have my signed waiver to access the adequate information from my GP which contains a more current psych report from the DHB Mental Health Team.

Hope that helps with letting some of you know the status in Hamilton and also how poorly treated those of us with severe mental injuries are being treated not only by ACC but also Winz!

Thanks for sharing your story

This is exactly the kind of situations that I have heard from a few others. It is truly appalling what they do at WINZ.

What is also astonishing is how some Work and Income centres do treat clients reasonably well, but others are running a very tight ship and take a harsh to severe approach.

I have just a few days ago sent off a further request under the Official Information Act 1982 and made 27 single, specified requests for specific information about Regional Health Advisors, the Principal Health Advisor, Regional Disability Advisors, the Principal Disability Advisor and Health and Disability Coordinators - as they are called by their fancy titles.

From an internal source I learned some time ago that one Regional Health Advisor in Auckland is a Mr Ahmad Alheikh, who is an immigrant from Iraq and supposedly worked in a medical practice in Australia for a while.

Knowing Work and Income they do not pay their staff the highest of salaries. Now ask yourself, why does a former GP that worked as a doctor in Australia come to New Zealand to work for Work and Income. We know that medical specialist jobs in Australia pay rather handsomely when compared to the same jobs in NZ.

That person is not on the register for medical practitioners nor as a nurse here in NZ!

How interesting it is that you know about the lack of qualifications in Hamilton.

The way they treat you is totally unacceptable. A person who has a GP or other specialist she or he sees regularly and trusts should be able to rely on the medical or health practitioner's ability to make a good judgment. A so-called designated doctor - who is selected and required to cooperate with a Regional Health Advisor of WINZ may see you for 15 minutes and has little true knowledge and sufficient information to make a fair, objective and balanced decision.

Pass on the info about all this and spread the word if you can, please. Some real action re this very aspect of WINZ's policies must be taken, especially since they are now sending clients to designated doctors in larger numbers.

The true goal is to save money on the sick and invalids with disabilities. Whatever else they tell the public is nothing but propaganda!

WINZ Advisors

That is exactly what I gathered from my appointment - when I questioned about the non-qualified "advisor" (which I don't think I was supposed to be told about, the Case Manager was rather "gossipy" and it may have slipped?) the Case Manager said the words "WINZ doesn't pay well and no doctor would want to work for us and for so little".

Sounds like the government need a good kick in the right place, maybe cut some of their funded travel costs or their high salaries and put that money back into the system where it's needed?

Let's start at the very top and re-distribute the CE's salary

According to some news published in October 2009 it appears that the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development is on $ 540,000 per annum. Now how many "ordinary" wage and salary earners could live off that?

That person gets more than the Prime Minister if I am right.

Shows you the whole hypocrisy in this rotten system!

According to the Social Security Act that head of the Ministry and WINZ appoints people like designated doctors, health professionals on Medical Appeal Boards and so, but of course it is done under delegated authority by his staff (partly insufficiently qualified Health Advisors and Coordinators).

It will be essential to lay the responsibility on all in the hierarchic chain - right up to the top!

Look at the following link for some figures re salaries:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ministry-of-social-development/news/article.cf...

Further to these guidelines and training of designated doctors

Just to add:

Have a read of the "Future Focus" policy document release by the Ministry, that contains goals that are being pushed by Paula Bennett and have already been turned into law to a fair degree. Yes, the statute has already been amended!

"Looking at what a (sick or disabled) person can do rather than what she/he cannot" and "unrelenting emphasis on work" are the new catch-phrases used by staff of WINZ AND by designated doctors (appointed, selected and to a fair degree instructed by Regional Health Advisors).

Compare this with the 'Code of Ethics' of the NZ Medical Profession and a conflict becomes evident.

The Ministry and WINZ push through ideologically and politically driven concepts and decision-making processes that are used to influence doctors and other medical professionals to compromise their professional independence and Code of Ethics!

I suggest a read of the Code that can be found on the website of the NZ Medical Association and elsewhere.

What you may find explains why most doctors are not keen on becoming designated doctors for WINZ!

definitely review every

definitely review every decision u are unhappy with.  a lot of winz's operating procedures are not based in law but on the policies of individual offices or department wide policy.  I understand dodgy decisions can be overturned by seeking reviews whereby the decision is looked at to see if the law actually licenses them to get away with what they are attempting or whether they have over-stepped their power and therefore gone too far.  you lose your rights unless you know and use them.

I concur, lodging a review

I concur, lodging a review can be the best solution to many WINZ problems. If people have problems with Reviews, contact your local advocacy group, or failing that, your local Citizen's Advice Bureau.

NO review possible after Medical Appeal Board Hearing!

Sorry but reviews are LIMITED and do not cover all decisions!

Of course, but

Of course requests for review do generally give a chance to achieve corrections, but that is not always the case. And then in one office you may have a reasonable manager, yet in another one you have a total jerk trying to deal to you. So accepting procedures and hoping for the best is a poor choice, because it is ultimately selfish and does not address the general questions and problems. Why should we expect discretion of Case Managers and Service Centre Managers when this is corrupting the system? ALL should be heard and treated equally and fairly!

Today a serious set back was experienced, because at the High Court an application for review was not accepted due to narrow minded interpretation of High Court Rules and tedious formalities that allegedly were not complying with the rules. Now I understand why few take the legal avenue to address issues, because the elite system employing elite persons dependent on the system and upholding it in key positions. Whether registrars, lawyers, judges, MP's or even advocates, they all have an interest in upholding this unfair, biased and corrupt system.

So I must concede that taking legal action may be rather futile. Nevertheless it should be tried and still will be tried again (after corrections made). I understand that true revolution cannot happen through the courts. It never will for many reasons.

So all those sceptical, feel encouraged to take action as you see fit. NZ is not the honest and transparent country that many reports claim, it is rather corrupt, elitist, suppressive of true free opinion and focussed on economical interest above anything else. An elite wants to uphold things the way they are,  hence they will NOT support us at any stage.

Same applies for the two faced Labour Party! They are doing nothing but lip service. I involved Annette King about the WINZ issue, but she cannot bother to reply.

Labour is a red tinted National Party and nothing else. The only reason to vote for them is to choose a lesser evil.

That is it for tonight, and I am sick of my life, challenges I face, this country, the way things are and stupid X-mas being ahead.

Maybe it is a good time to finish this miserable existence in absolutely appaling circumstances?

Good Bye

Do not forget:

And do NOT forget, once a decision is made by a Medical Appeal Board then there is NO more appeal, no review or anything possible! That is against natural justice  and rule of law principles!

So once you have gone there and did not succeed (bias or not by the decision makers) you are STUFFED!

Ask Sue Bradford re this, she knows the system fairly well enough!

No information received re OIA application!

After a deadline set for today (following a request months ago and previous deadlines) NO information re Regional Health Advisors qualificatins, re procedures and standards followed when appointing such Health Advisors, designated doctors and the way they operate has been received. Also was it requested to inform about the possible conflicts of interests, rules and guidelines followed by designated doctors when making decisions, and so forth, but NO INFORMATION has been made available.

Hence a complaint to the Office of Ombudsmen will now be lodged.

Is this "transparency"  I ask?

It's good to see the

It's good to see the beneficiary movement getting stuck in over what's going on at the moment.  It's particularly pleasing to see the academics and the church leaders getting in and having a crack too, which always sends a strong message that things aren't right. The more opposition there is the better, and it must continue.  The alternative welfare working group's report is great, but would be complemented beautifully with an ongoing assault of direct action - peaceful direct action, but angry as hell direct action.  Nothing gets up the noses of self-righteous boneheads like Bennett, and those of her ilk, than seeing effigies of themselves going up in smoke.  Check Bennett's cosy little chats she has with her webcam on youtube, watch her really closely while the drivel flows.  The first thing you'll notice, pretty quickly in fact, is how little she has upstairs - she certainly ain't no Einstein, but that's not the point.  If you watch her closely enough you'll see that she's a psychopath who's not interested in making people's lives better - she's only interested in herself.  Notice the way when referring to people who qualify for social welfare benefit she uses the words "them" and "they" and to "their" - she's just disgusting.  She's just a nasty person, so all that can be done to make her go away the better things will be for everyone.  While someone just as yucky is likely to replace her, but that doesn't mean she doesn't need to be dealt to now.  Direct action is of course just one necessary tool in the toolkit, but nonetheless, will look forward to seeing some serious effigy burning in a town near you.

christine rankin, when she

christine rankin, when she was head of WINZ, after the private jet controversy got spat at regularly in public or called B****.  it wrecked her life.  she gets all teary recounting it.  I think the minister and the CEO should get a pie to the face, often.  and john and gerry too of course.

First of All to all

First of All to all Activists, I have the greatest respect for you, characters of the Earth, and I love you.I love you all who are striving for equality.

My heart is breaking.The world is going to the dogs.

The plants are dying.The whores are hustling.The soldier is killing someone.The businessmen plan for ecological damage.The refugees and asylum seekers struggle, the prisoners of conscience have only coldness.WE MUST ACT in the broader context.

We must be technologically adept.We must get inside, as well as protesting.

I totally hate Bennett.I say get the activists ready to lock her down somehow, burning effigies yes.There must be some pretty smart @ctivists out there, with more resources than me right now and who have 'access' to well, 'things'.

Yep sure her smiling as she said 'struggling families' - notice too her disgusting facial expressions, her cringing, her face pulling, and puffing-up of herself now that she 'has a job in govt'.She has a job with the fascists more like.The sad thing is, violence now looks like a reality.So so sad.

Your "diagnosis" of mental capacities of PB is correct

Yes you hit it on the head of the nail: Paula Bennett is no Einstein and has not got much upstairs. That is why the National Party hijacked her to do the dirty job and deal to beneficiaries for them! And then, why should a retard like that be given study leave to examine welfare policies in the US on $ 5000 full salary a week? If this is not the biggest insult to a beneficiary having to face cuts and restrictions, what is?

 

Read the Future Focus policy paper, research the other policies this government follows and you will find that they are even cracking down on special needs grants now. If you ask for more than two or three a year they will send you to budget advisors. I had applied for special needs grants earlier this year, was sent to Citizen's Advice after having to fill in a form to apply for a letter stating I had no more entitlement from WINZ. I got help initially through the CAB, but when I needed help again 5 weeks later they wanted a letter from WINZ and sent me off to Salvation Army. They could not help me any more was the story, and after having to complete another form at WINZ to get a letter stating I had no more entitlement I was also told that any NGO organisation like a food bank will not give out food unless you have a letter from WINZ. Now they are introducing "payment cards" which is the precursor to force people to only shop at certain shops and be totally "transparent" about their shopping. What about transparency of their policies? I see nothing of that! That is what NAZI stuff is made of!

UNITE + beneficiaries organisations should consider 24/7 picket

What I feel should be considered is a 24/7 picket outside the home of the Minister for Social Development at her residential home in West Auckland. It can be done within the law and to send a resolute message to her from the people affected. That is of course if it is possible to organise enough people to do this and hold up placards. Was there not an interesting case called Brooker v Police, where it was established that vocal and resolute protest ins allowed in such manner at any time?

She must be confronted at any time if possible re her ruthless approach an hypocrisy. As the Minister she has to be addressed and must be shown the anger of the people affected.

It is beyond me that this has so far only been done occasionally.

  Yes Radical, lets do it.We

 

Yes Radical, lets do it.We have full right and so does everyone else to speak their minds.

The state are now developing (crowd control systems) with the military.I will fight with you against them.They have too much power, and like Pono and other people say we must bring them to their knees.The thing is, they are people, what can we do.People make up an organisation, they become targets.Unfortunately Bennett is now a target for 'very angry activists'.Is she 'just doing her job'?. From the poverty I see.No, she is not and there shouldn't even be a job like 'Social Developer-Ministry of SD' anyway.

Name sounds fascist, hierarchical and fucking revolting.Hope the royal wankers teeth rot.HA!

 

contact me.although Im just a mother stuck at home studying, please listen to some of my thoughts

why not protest/blockade the

why not protest/blockade the MSD building opp the beehive.  it's a centralised dept with most work done at head office.

    Yeah good idea.Contact me

 

 

Yeah good idea.Contact me and the others (other wgtn activists) there's alot-matter of finding them! to organise this ok

  Is there a way this can be

 

Is there a way this can be done expertly?As in completely locked down?codes needed prob

why not pull the fire alarm

why not pull the fire alarm regularly.

Ministry of Social Destruction (MSD) or Social Deviation?

Well I feel encourage by many of you supportive comments and those taking action all over Aotearoa New Zealand. I feel that this government has not realised what their policies will result in for many, nor have they considered the stiff opposition that will hit them once the new policies will be implemented (look at next year).

Sue Bradford tried to bring in a bit more justice with her private members bill presented to Parliament on 19 August 2009.

Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill

 it was called and addressed to some degree the very issues I have raised and will raise to the Courts. 

It was rejected by the majority of National, ACT and United Future voting against that bill being heard further.

So we know who to thank for the continued injustice and illegal processes used by Work and Income and the Ministry of Social Detriment.

Paula Bennett is at the head of it and I feel one of the most hated persons in NZ. I well remember how much Jenny Shipley was hated in the early 1990's, same as of course Ruth the Mother of Ruthanasia and of all unfair budgets.

Paula Bennett is deserving of more criticism and hatred, because she is even worse than those. She claims to act in the interest of beneficiaries but does anything but. Shipley and Richardson were at least more honest about their goals.

An effigy burning day should be planned and nominated by all support agencies, advocates, unions, activist organisation, UNITE and so forth. We should perhaps have a "day of action" burning hundreds of effigies of the "Most hated New Zealander" being Paula Bennett at some time early next year. Get the petrol and matches ready, cut out the cardboard figures, make the placards and take action.

When the first beneficiaries will have their benefits cut by 50 per cent, then the pain will set in and the awakening will start.

What we live under is little differend as "soft style fascism".

I have tonight sent emails to 2 renowned Queen Councils to see whether they are interested in a class action Judicial Review. I pray and hope that it will succeed. MSD must be exposed, held accountable and the Minister should be forced to resign with immediate effect once the whole matter will blow up into her face.

Good night in solidarity with all affected and sympathetic.

  You are one awesome

 

You are one awesome individual.Benefits cut by 50%-thats a recipe for civil war.

Hey cool so we need planning days-how can I contact you?Or please contact admin for mine.We need all activist groups/individuals on board.I'll be in wgtn.BT.

 

Try HCAOTEAROA2008@xtra.co.nz

Try HCAOTEAROA2008@xtra.co.nz and I will be able to contact you!

Bennett

No doubt you've seen this pathetic and revolting behaviour from Bennett?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/twelve-days-of-christmas/kiwi-celebs-c...

All the more reason she needs to be dealt to.  This is great material for effigy burning.  We could have her up their, on sticks, doing all sorts of things.  Shows her up as the filthy piece of work she is.  No doubt there'll be some interesting cartoons coming out in the next day or two.

 

Obviously "NO Einstein!"

I'm getting a bit concerned re effigy burning now. The original specimen appears to be growing larger by the month. So effigies will soon need to be the size of a house. Burning that would require not just a fire extinguisher at a march, it would necessitate 5 fully manned fire engines to accompany any protest intending effigy burning. Otherwise the flames would get out of control and burn whole cities down. No safety could be guaranteed.

The Ministry of Sado Dominance may be appropriate too

The Ministry of Social Development is a misnomer. It should be called anything but that. Perhaps - in reflection - "Ministry of Sado Dominance" is a good term and way to put it?

 

Also I meant "Queens Counsels" not "Councils" in my earlier post. That does not mean I believe in the Crown, the Queen or what, it is just a pragmatic approach to try and involve a well qualified lawyer.

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1964 AND NEW AMENDMENTS

All those that bother to be interested have a look at the new and amended provisions of the Social Security Act 1964 for enlightening yourselves about what is in store for solo parents, sickness beneficiaries and others. Try the following links:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1964/0136/latest/DLM359107.html

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0105/latest/DLM3170303.html?search=ad_regulation___2008-2009___ra_rcur_r&p=1

Of particular interest should be sections 60 H to Z, section 54DA, section 99AA and section 99AB, section 101, section 102, section 102A, section 105, section 123D and section 132 of the newly amended Social Security Act 1964, as well as sections 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20 and particularly section 25 of the so-called: 

Social Security (New Work Tests, Incentives, and Obligations) Amendment Act 2010

For info about the ideological Future Focus policy papers look up these links:

http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/media-r...

http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/media-r...

http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/media-r...

http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/media-r...

http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-res...

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/BillsDigests/3/1/1/4...

http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/reg...

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A03E1786-A18F-4A1B-8879-6F75976D69...

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/welfares-future-focus-looks-pretty-fuzzy

If this is not something that resembles in a perhaps "moderate" form what the Nazis introduced with their forced labour programs, then what is?

Paula Bennett is the reaper in sheep's clothing.

 

"Paula Bennett is the reaper

"Paula Bennett is the reaper in sheep's clothing "

More like just plain grim in Leopard's clothing.

Information supplied by MSD/WINZ under OIA

Just recently we received one more letter from MSD - or this time rather WINZ (sitting at the same Auckland Regional Office at 65 A Main Highway, Ellerslie, Auckland!) - representing a peculiar way of reply to a repeated OIA application for release of information.

Instead of making available the true internal guidelines, criteria and so forth used to appoint designated doctors, simply an application form for GP's or similar wanting to apply for being designated doctors was sent.

Well it has some "basic" information, but is definitely not saying all that much about the way Regional Health Advisors, Regional Managers and possible the Principle Health Advisor, the Principal Disability Advisor or so-called Health and Disability Coordinators may decide about who to choose and appoint.

A very important condition is mentioned under the heading -

CRITERIA:

According to that a prospective designated doctor must: "have a demonstrated ability to work constructively with Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff."

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/documents/designated-doctor-application...

Knowing a bit about the internal policies followed and implemented, it does not leave that much to imagine what they mean with this!

Again:

According to the statute it is the "Chief Executive" who appoints such medical and health professionals to work for or with MSD! That is usually under delegation. So it is most likely that the same people sitting in the same offices do appoint the designated doctor a client must first see for a "second opinion". If the client is not happy with the decision, then she/he are "allowed" an "appeal" to a Medical Appeal Board, whose members are again nominated by the "Chief Executive" (practically "under delegated authority") and hence by more or less the same staff members of MSD or WINZ (sitting in the same regional offices).

That is supposed to allow for "independent" hearings!???

Compare all this with the 'Code of Ethics' of the NZ Medical Profession, and you will see that it is higly likely that any medical or health practitioner will at least in some cases feel a "conflict" with their own professional ethics exist.

http://www.nzma.org.nz/about/Code%20of%20Ethics%20-%20for%20the%20NZ%20m...

Under natural justice a main principle is:"Nemo judex in causo sua". See the meaning of this, which is of a principle also applicable under NZ law!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

So one must ask: Is the process aplied truly complying with basic natural justice and rule of law principles? It clearly is NOT!

Then look at provisions against discrimination in the HRA and NZBORA. Discrimination on grounds of health or disability are not allowed. Yet people appealing for hearings to Medical Appeal Boards "on medical grounds" do clearly get DISCRIMINATED, because after that (biased) decision making body has made it's decision NO further right of appeal exists!

Justice a la MSD!

The best way may be to ...

Yeah - in that case the best and safest way to deal with a challenge of being told to have to see a designated doctor would be: To simply refuse and say that you only trust your own doctor of so many years and see NO reason to accept any pressure to see another doctor!

What would WINZ be confronted with?

They would have to take the risk of cutting, cancelling or changing your benefit entitlement under the risk of being wrong and causing harm and damage to you. Nobody should be "forced" to see such "designated doctors' or whatever, because they do not know you, nor do you know them! There is no trust and sufficient knowledge such professionals could have of your health problems.

Risk may be losing out on some bene?!

For those that can and bother to read more:

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/m...

 

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/m...

 

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/m...

 

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/m...

 

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/m...

 

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/m...

 

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/m...

 

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/m...

 

So read between the lines also!

In some cases you may have a mixture of psychiatric and physical illnesses, yet a nurse can declare you fit to work 15 or more hours a week, or a Medical Appeal Board made up of a Physio, a common GP (as designated doctor) and another rehab professional without psychiatric experience or qualification can meet and decide that a person with psychiatric conditions is "fit" to work more than 15 hours a week and hence has NO MORE entitlement for the Invalids Benefit! That means a transfer to the SB and $ 50 "savings" to the Mininstry, also meaning active future "work testing" and "planning" for the client!

That is what actually happens to some people and is scandalous, because the law and rules are allowing too much flexibility (which is wanted). They are not following any convention that "appropriately skilled" or qualified people with matching scopes of practice to the conditions to decide upon are having to sit on boards!

Overseas junkets.

Can someone explain to bully Bennett that there are actually almost 6 times as many people receiving a benefit, than there are job vacancies.

So if she could fill every available job tomorrow, she would only solve less than 20% of her perceived problem.

The real burden on the tax payer are her overseas junkets, and the so called experts she meets to bring back here.

Let us be compassionate and fair!

PB obviously is a "junket", "sea food", "SBW" and "flash clothing shopping junkey". We need to help her and look after her. She is addicted, so she needs to be put onto the Sickness Benefit which will pay her $ 194 pw (saving us nearly $ 4,800 pw) and get to see a counsellor at CADS. She can stay on that for 2 years and perhaps even qualify for an extension on the Invalids Benefit. But once 2 more years are up, she needs to be "grounded" and "re-integrated" into work testing for pt work at 15 hours a week. She will manage well and lose some weight, thus benefitting her health and that of the tax payer. Problem solved. Welfare and good deeds done!

Good stuff, that way she

Good stuff, that way she becomes an excellant role model for all beneficiaries.