Meet ‘Carol’ from WINZ
Every year, the annual humiliation and revelation of the horror that is WINZ is put on display when AAAP run welfare advocacy programs outside Manurewa’s Work and Income office.
Beneficiaries were queuing at 2am in the freezing rain in the hope to see an advocate. So horrific is the way that WINZ treat people, that they are willing to queue from 2am in the desperate hope of meeting with someone who can actually let them know what their rights are.
TDB has been at the forefront of demonising these neoliberal welfare organisations because it is only when you demonise, humiliate and savage the corrupt public service that anything changes.
We’ve seen the State use false meth hysteria to punish thousands of state tenants. We’ve seen the State steal babies from mothers. We’ve seen the State hand out biased justice.
The manner in which MSD and WINZ spy on and mistreat the most vulnerable washing up on their doorsteps however manage to eclipse all those departments.
We have a toxic culture in WINZ and MSD that is so bad people are willing to stand in the freezing rain from 2am to get help. Just let that sink in.
The truth is that Government has been hopeless at managing the neoliberal welfare agencies to be anything other than a stick, and have come far too late to the game in their first term to remedy these corruptions of social policy. The only hope to force real change is to fund groups like AAAP to be advocacy agents for beneficiaries (effectively unionise the beneficiaries) and also fund AAAP to prepare annual reports that are critical of WINZ.
That way you help those desperately attempting to navigate the purposefully complex paperwork WINZ demands while also publicly humiliating WINZ in the eyes of Jacinda ‘Politics of Kindness’ Ardern.
Only public humiliation and demonisation of these toxic public services will force kindness.
Its not that easy to get rid of all the unsuitable staff in many of our government departments
How about a reset back to the social welfare act 1964, the secrecy surrounding the current laws is a national disgrace, the outcomes are obvious to all, first they take your dignity, then they take yer home, finally they come for your children.
Then you are farmed out to a corporation to live in a old folks home where they asset strip you and give you a pitiful 25 bucks a week to “live on”, no wonder they are taking everyone’s guns ah?
Viva the revolution, there is no longer any other option.
And that is what happens people like you don’t vote because you feel aggrieved many others feel disenfranchised . In the last 9 yrs i saw begging and homelessness i have never seen here before, why? the last government cut social policy funding they promised us a brighter future they sold assets they knocked down state housing with the intention of privatising and dumb Nz ers still continued to vote for them.
there are various ways to handle this…but the problem is there is near zero real world understanding of WINZ/MSD by MPs, Sue Bradford was a lone voice for too long in Parliament, such as when Helen Clark bought in the “jobs jolt”, continuing the demonisation of the vulnerable from the Bolger Shipley years
AAAP simply force case managers to obey the Act and inform people of their entitlements–do the departments actual job in other words. Jacinda needs to spend a day out and about with AAAP.
Carmel Sepuloni should know something about it from a personal perspective, but may well be intimidated both by department heads and what happened to Meteria Turei
Really all the top management of WINZ/MSD need to be sacked, even via the old subterfuge of “reapplying for your own job” if necessary to avoid huge bludging payouts. If the neo lib leaders go, there may be a slim chance of getting all the PSA members–yes, union members are among those carrying out the war on the poor–to adopt a new culture, but don’t bet on that!
No, the best answer if the Govt. is reelected would be to disestablish WINZ/MSD entirely, and institute a new guaranteed minimum income for all citizens, and a brand new “Social Security” act.
A lot of comment on TDB amounts to moaning and bitching–which is at least an indication that not everyone has left their brain at the door–but what about a regular “suggestion” feature on ways out of the Neo Lib blind canyon?
There is a lot of combined experience here that should be utilised. One thing I really liked about the Internet Party was the online policy development.
Totally Guys,we all need to collaborate here.
I myself have a situation going,i have some real time Case Studies to share with TDB.
The outcome can be altered with more positive public engagement…
It was a great pity the Internet/Mana Party was sunk by insularity and tribal cartel Labour and the so-called Left
…wasted votes and lost them the Election to Jonkey Nact (unforgivable)
….as well we lost a truly innovative and pro working class pro Maori flaxroots party with brains
…wish it could be reinstated
Gareth Morgan said ‘if we establish a UBI, WINZ workers and the like can ALL be cleared out and then they can go do something meaningful with their lives’.
Hard to argue he wasn’t on the right track.
On UBI – if not done thoughtfully and kindly and appropriately, it will be just an efficiency move leaving vast numbers of people on a targeted minimum benefit that doesn’t meet their needs, increases poverty, and which reduces the up-front social welfare bill through having a simplified system with less personal concern.
The complacent and self-centred c-off (comfortably off) will beam at the costs of administering social welfare at present appear to go down and ignore how the background costs go up, the health, disease, the sadness, the criminality, the unsatisfactory untidiness of beggars, not the incredible lightness of being that UBI supporters proclaim will automatically happen.
It would be a good thing for everybody having the right to a benefit of sorts that would pay for basic living costs or be given ‘in kind’ like a hostel with basic food for those between jobs etc. But the emphasis must be on enabling people to work at something, government has been a principal player in bringing in the export-import regime that has cancelled out so many small jobs producing to the local market. So now encourage people to live the life of a skilled worker at manual or tech jobs even if they are at the precariat level, and when unemployed be able to go to free classes, learn new skills, do art work, help in conservation etc. , and keep fit so they can get seasonal employment – be able to maintain themselves in a fit state to work when it is available. People need to find stimulating work, be with others, and get to where they can live simply with enough money to travel to see family, take part in gatherings, fairs, concerts, that build community and enjoyment of life.
That would be the role for UBI, it would guarantee to lift people out of poverty to a simple lifestyle but never abandonment which we are seeing now.
One of the problems with reporting to government about deficiencies in a program that an agency is working with, is that can be regarded as advocacy. Advocacy is not allowed from agencies funded by government, as their job is to deal with the clients only! They are told that they are not funded so as to complain to government, to point out deficiencies, to advise how money could be spent on something more effective using different methods and perspectives etc.
I think Helen Clark’s government brought that little one in. All in the interest of maximum bang for the buck as measured by strict targets. There then is no room for change from the relentless move back into the charity style used in 1900s and on, looking at whether people are deserving or not; are they obeying the rigid moral precepts of ‘decent people’ etc. The punishments for women trying to manage on low money, and poor prospects, and demands for this and that which are so hard to meet are exemplified by the close scrutiny of their every move and whether they are in a relationship with a man ‘in the nature of marriage’. When a woman offers a man a meal, it is probably an indication of friendship, if he mows her lawn in return, they are possibly as good as married. How can anyone get help when there are these vicious harpies and callous men from MPs and advisors down to the ‘civil’ servants dishing out charity?
The attitude should be to act as Life Coach for beneficiary mothers and fathers to help them manage, and do their best for their children, and have at least a part-time job that will train them in community skills, and possibly pay them a little, without adjusting their benefit. The social worker would become a Life Coach trying to empower the woman or man.
They would ask ‘What are your immediate problems and how can we help with those? And when those are dealt with what can you do to improve things for yourself and children, let’s make a realistic plan of things that will be coming up soon. What dates will you need to have these done by, are these all the demands you need to meet, number these from 1 on as to importance for you and family. Now what can you do from your own resources, and what extra help and resources are needed for a simple fix so you can work your way along the list?’
That’s all positive stuff and shows expectation that the person will be self-managing, but that the government is willing to aid and coach and educate. Going to classes with others and learning skills and gaining confidence and pride in oneself, being treated respectfully encourages self-respect and that will make all the difference. Not this shitty derision from ‘naice’ people who have their mainstream life all organised in a way that is approved by all who count. Enough of that, nurture the strugglers and most will blossom.
But SockWelfare don’t care about people, their job is to hand out charity and they are encouraged to be sparing – no-one is going to find a straight pathway out of the precariat under the present ‘flexible’ low paid, regime. Welfare have been taught that beneficiaries have become helpless and lazy, and need a shock to get them working – at anything but looking after their children and supporting them. Then they get blamed if they fail; the circle of the vicious.
In the Press today Sepuloni says 98% of special needs grants are granted. However AAAP says they can be turned away at reception and they say that the amount they get is less without AAAP there.
Sepuloni hasn’t got a clue what goes on in her department because it’s the same officials spinning her the shit about how wonderful MSD is who worked for Bennett et al during the last lot’s time. The there was another 9 years before that when things were just as bad.
What Sepuloni doesn’t know is that people who’re refused help don’t have their applications recorded. Receptionists tell people not to bother applying. MSD staff on the 0800 number do the same thing. And then if someone does get lucky and manages to get past the receptionist, and talks to a person who can issue the help, application forms aren’t ever filled in until a decision is made to grant the assistance, whether it’s a food grant or whatever. “98% of applications are granted” is absolutely meaningless when applications are only processed if it’s likely the benefit will be granted.
First they should end the need to repay emergency grants out of the benefit.
The recent research published on whether plants have feelings should have been done on NZ social workers. No I misspoke, the research should have been done on WINZ staff (most of them aren’t qualified to practice social work). Do these people feel pain? Can they think, reason, communicate? Heck are they even conscious? Conclusion: see the plant study. At least some plants look appealing and have taste, Carol.
I went on a DPB in 1983 just before the Labour Party got into power. I was made to give an affidavit so the Government could sue my ex partner in the UK for child support which as there was no treaty was absolutely unenforceable. The decision to do this was made by a 17 year old who was pissed by the fact I was getting more money than her. People doleing out public money have always behaved badly, many because they resent people “getting THEIR money”. It doesn’t matter what people are on the top you need a culture and thought change at the bottom.
This would be a response to the practice of using the advocates to assist in the administrative process, because staff resources cannot cope with the increase in demand due to greater willingness to make the grants.
Which is a positive, but indicates a need to formalise (pay for) the advocacy role.
But it is also suggestive of continuing economic hardship despite the
Power Income Supplement and the 2018 WFF increases. Probably housing costs and related financial indebtedness – including inability to access affordable credit.
“…while also publicly humiliating WINZ in the eyes of Jacinda ‘Politics of Kindness’ Ardern.”
Yes, keep doing that, just as we should regardless of who the government is. But don’t expect anything special because it’s a Labour government. Labour governments have continued to show their hatred of the poor since before Clark’s reign of terror over beneficiaries between 1999 and 2008, at least from when they flip-flopped on their promise to reverse the 1991 benefit cuts, probably even before then. With a track record like that, together with not a jot of evidence anything’s going to change soon, the future looks grim for those on the lowest incomes.
Has not this govt increased the minimum wage? increased the wages of teachers? made people think that they might just maybe get a pay rise?
do these people really have to queue? can’t there be some organising for appointments so the queues don’t have to happen?
these people definitely aren’t getting enough to live on with dignity but how many are getting up and organising to improve their lot?
worker/non worker, if you want to improve your lot you need to organise.
Comments are closed.