EXCLUSIVE: Worst case of WINZ debt slavery
The recent media focus on how WINZ actually treat NZers is unearthing new outrages of WINZ plunging the most vulnerable into debt slavery…
Emergency WINZ debt at over $50k for family
A family that has required extensive emergency housing is over $50,000 in debt to WINZ after remaining in a motel unit for many months.
…and this…
Homeless family faces $100k WINZ debt
A woman with eight children living in emergency housing is facing a debt to Work and Income of $100,000, which she will never repay, a support group says.
…but it gets worse when you consider the pure viciousness of how WINZ claim relationship fraud.
WINZ have a unit who trawl social media to catch beneficiaries out having relationships. WINZ have no clear equation of what being in a relationship is. There is no minimum time living together, no way to find out what construes a relationship and it actually forces beneficiaries to stay out of relationships.
In this exclusive TDB first published last year, we highlighted an appalling case where WINZ was allowed to punish a beneficiary over and over and over again…
Ms H was convicted in 2001 in the District Court on six charges of wilfully omitting to advise that she was in a relationship in the nature of marriage for the purpose of misleading the Ministry’s officer and receiving a benefit. Ms H was ordered to repay $117,598.84 and received a 6 month jail sentence, which she subsequently served. The debt owing meant that any steps Ms H might be able to take to improve the financial prospects of herself and her daughter were in fact unlikely to result in any improvement since, if Ms H’s income increased, the Ministry would immediately increase the sum it was deducting from her income each week to repay the debt. Ms H maintained her innocence throughout the District Court proceedings and subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal.
This decision is to be further appealed at 10 am on 4thAugust 2015 in the High Court in Auckland.
Ms H not only served a six month prison sentence to the detriment of her child but also spent 15 years in legal challenges both against her criminal convictions and against the $117,598.84 debt established by the Ministry against her. She continues to maintain that she was not in a relationship in the nature of a marriage and suffered wrongful conviction.
The recent High Court decision in this well-publicised case, H v Ministry of Social Development [2012] NZHC 669, stressed that the Ministry is supposed to consider the international covenants and thus take into account:
A beneficiary’s individual financial circumstances and the impact that ongoing benefit repayments would have on their ability to support themselves and any dependent child. (Ministry of Social Development, 2013)
However, the court also noted that ‘hardship does not necessarily preclude recovery, but it is a factor that should be considered’.
Ms H’s background included the death of a child who was killed by a former partner. In addition, Ms H alleged that the partner with whom it was alleged she was in a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’, had indecently assaulted her other children. Ms H served a term of imprisonment of six months as a result of the convictions, thereby taking her away from her children and meaning she was unable to care for them or protect them. In addition to the jail term, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development sought to recover the $117,598.84 of benefit that Ms H allegedly was not entitled to receive. Ms H was on an Invalid’s Benefit and challenged the decision to recover the full amount, arguing that the deductions by the Ministry meant that she had insufficient income to care properly for the daughter who was still living with her, and that this was having an adverse impact on her child. In addition, given Ms H’s age, lack of skills, employment history and poor health, it was unlikely that she would ever in her life obtain a high-paying job with an income sufficient to make repayment of the full amount a realistic prospect. Ms H accordingly faced the prospect of a crushing debt burden for the rest of her life.
Ms H was unsuccessful at both the Benefits Review Committee and the Social Security Appeal Authority, which both confirmed that she was required to repay the full sum. She challenged the decision in the High Court, arguing that the Chief Executive should have exercised his discretion under section 86 of the Social Security Act not to recover the full sum. The High Court, in a judgment dated 4 April 2012, held that the Authority had erred in law:
in determining that it was not satisfied that the Chief Executive should exercise his discretion not to recover the debt, and in failing to give sufficient consideration to the effects of the ongoing reductions in benefit level on the rights of the dependent child under Articles 26 and 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the rights of the affected citizen in need of social security to support herself and her child under Article 27 and under Articles 9-12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
However, the High Court referred the case back to the Social Security Appeal Authority for further consideration. The Authority, in a decision dated 16 December 2013, refused to cancel the debt. It noted that the Chief Executive had offered to suspend recovery of the debt until Ms H’s daughter had left school.
This decision is to be appealed at 10 am on 4thAugust 2015 in the High Court in Auckland.
This case illustrates issues which arise for many mothers in receipt of benefits. Relationships may be off and on rather than permanent, and the male partner may provide no or only a small amount of financial support, rather than a sum which supports the entire family. There may also be violence and/or sexual abuse of children. The mother may find herself without any income, as the violent partner withdraws any financial support. In such circumstances a benefit may be vital to protect her children but she runs the risk that the relationship, nevertheless will still found to be a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’. She has few protections or redress.
The 2012 Regulatory Impact Statement Tackling Welfare Fraud and Welfare Debt Recovery Agency Disclosure Statement says of this case:
Recent High Court decisions have questioned how MSD applies discretion to recover welfare debt. In the most recent decision H v Ministry of Social Development the High Court held that:
-there is no presumption in the Social Security Act that MSD will recover debt
-in exercising the discretion to recover debt, MSD must consider:
– a beneficiary’s individual financial circumstances and the impact that ongoing benefit repayments would have on their ability to support themselves and any dependent child
– international instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) having regard to the adequacy of the beneficiary’s standard of living and the impact debt collection would have on it and their dependent children.
-
The Court also noted that hardship does not necessarily preclude recovery, but is a factor that should be considered.
-
There have been other previous High Court decisions which, when considered together with H, provide insufficient clarity about MSD’s rights and obligations when recovering debt.
-
H clearly conflicts with MSD’s practices, which presume that MSD will always seek to recover a debt and actively pursue it until all avenues to recover it have been exhausted.
-
The implications of the lack of clarity in the case law, and the direction H appears to be travelling in, is that MSD could be challenged to re-open individual cases, classes of cases or all cases where they have exercised discretion to recover debt. In the absence of clarification to legal settings MSD would probably be obliged to change their approach to debt recovery in the future (with a likely consequential reduction in the recovery of debt).
…this is beyond political party’s – every political party crucifies those on benefits – it’s as bad under Labour as it is under National – we are being wilfully cruel to the poorest members of our society and the hatred towards those on benefits allows it to occur totally unchallenged.
We need a Bernie Sanders political revolution before the weakest members of society are freed from this feudalism.
NZ has become the land of the long white occupation where the poorest are crucified with debt and the rich build tax havens.
“It noted that the Chief Executive had offered to suspend recovery of the debt until Ms H’s daughter had left school. ”
Gosh, that was ‘big’ of him.
No wonder so many people are reluctant to go to WINZ. East Germany had the Stasi, the Nazis had the Gestapo, the Soviets had their KGB, we have WINZ.
WINZ is how conservative New Zealanders exact their retribution against the poor for being poor.
Even the Green, Mana and Legalise Cannabis parties? I’d like to question them about this; do you have any references?
AGAIN MARTYN THIS IS A GOVERNMENT ACTING AS “ALL CARE BUT NO RESPONSIBILTY.”
GREAT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM MATE, – REAL CLEAR CASE OF NO CARE FROM A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT..
If a person wants to have eight kids that is their human right. The debate isn’t about that; it is about what WINZ are doing. It wasn’t long ago that the Natzi Party floated the idea of paying for sterilisation for people in welfare. Such ideas are abhorrent and reek of the things the Nazis did. Perhaps what is needed is sterlisation of all rich people in the country. That would eliminate the selfish arrogance and greed that has infected our culture within a few generations.
Hmmmm… wasn’t it the neo liberals who supported big immigration because NZ’s population was stagnant at zero growth …. and they were worried about superannuation , an ageing population and needing a bigger tax base from workers?….
Sooo…. 8 kids?… Ahh… but she was on a benefit – silly me- and that might mean that more cash and intelligent policy’s were needed to educate our own citizens .
Far easier to simply import a few more hundred thousand more for cheap labour … and bugger any housing crisis. And those imports will only be too happy to provide us with more votes…
Part of the commodification of the destitute and homeless. The Market says someone, the motel owners, must make a profit from them and Winz will do the debt collection later. Also privatising part of Winz where private agencies get bonuses for pushing people into jobs.
Commodification is the transformation of goods, services, ideas and not least people into commodities or objects of trade. A commodity at its most basic, according to Arjun Appadurai, is “any thing intended for exchange,” or any object of economic value.People are commodified – turned into objects – when working, by selling their labour on the market to an employer.One of its forms is slavery. Others are, the trading with animals and body parts through formalised or informalised organ transplant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodification
Aye…tis a wee Bilderbergish in essence.
We is the cattle… and the consumer eaters…oh,…hang on, – that was one of the Rothschild’s, wasn’t it?… same dif at the final wash I suspect…
“In the nature of a marriage”
Considering marriage is not a universal life sentence anymore, mixed families now being the norm, this relationship test is Kafkaesque. Traditional two parent families are a minority in 2016. Punitive measures by MSD, especially against solo mothers based on a question that has no answer typifies the profit model that has monetized even compassion.
Applying for a funeral expenses grant at WINZ after the death of the children’s mother, the father was asked
“She was on a benefit, and you were living together? “
“…as bad under Labour as it is under National…” easy knee-jerk dismissal.
Evidence, please.
It’s just as comparing apples with oranges as Nick Smith’s assertion that “the poor are with us always” that enraged you so much.
I am sure your cheap shot was just an intro to the follow-up eulogy of Bernie Sanders, and Bernie is doubtless a fine chap, but he is no more a Messiah than any other politician with conviction but no actual plan.
The Lange-Douglas administration’s mistakes are well documented and Helen was in power during a period of persistent growth and opportunity. You can berate WINZ fine without feeling the urge to cast garbage in all directions. Try it.
Actually, the worst thing WINZ has done is turn themselves from a social service into a judgmental mean spirited ATM.
The solution will begin to be found when they go back to one-on-one case managers. Problems should be found way before they get to the disastrous point that your post documents. They will never be picked up until individuals are made to be, or enabled to be, responsible (on both sides of the equation, actually).
The only reason winz don’t like beneficiaries to have relationships is because the beneficiaries might breed more pesky poor people. It wouldn’t surprise me if national would love to pass a law saying that all beneficiaries will have to be sterilised.
Yes well, … they’ve exhausted the population boost by the ‘mass immigration ‘ bit so now they can feel confident and free in using a sector of society as a whipping boy to blame their incompetence on.
Shocking. What about an advocacy legal service for DPB people to go to to get legal representation when WINZ deems them in a relationship.
Let the people be in a relationship in my view!! Better for the kids!! Now we have working for families I don’t see why beneficiaries can’t be a family and receive DPB assistance!
This is like student loans again. They take from the weak and give people loans that hold them back for the rest of their lives!
Ha!… I’m sorry to say but legal advocacy went out with limited legal aid before one has to pay all that back as well.
Another one of Keys far right wing fanatical policy’s to creating a whipping boy sector of society to blame their incompetence on.
Gee , these working poor and beneficiaries are so handy for right wing fanatics.
They should get a pay rise for services rendered.
So we have again debtors prisons.
And work camps with jolly signs that say ‘ Work shall set you free’ as you merrily approach the gates after disembarking from your cattle car.
This one company I worked for had a sign out the front of HR saying “friends for life.” We use to say “friends for life, lose your wife.”
“every political party crucifies those on benefits” – the Green Party doesn’t. It’s really worth including the Green position on political issues of the day where they are different as it lets people know there is a party with alternative policies. Way too often, the Green Party’s position is seen as irrelevant by both the left and the right in any discussion unless it is to do with the environment. By marginalising the Greens, media marginalises the ideas they stand for.
Put it this way… there’s been a noticeable increase of ominous comments as of late…and if that’s any indication of the growing sentiment out there … it doesn’t matter if your Green, National, NZ First or Labour or the silly hats party…
You better start taking serious heed .
And if your a National person… just remember… last election you barely crossed the line without your marginal percentage allies…
There’s now a whole heap of pissed off , angry fuckers out there now who don’t vote National in this country… it wouldn’t be wise to get too cocky.
Better shape up.
That’s all I can say.
Even those on the socially acceptable benefit like super have to expose their private lives to the state. There are three different amounts you get: 1. Single living on your own, 2. Single sharing accommodation and 3. Married. If you are in 2 and have sex with your roomy, then you become 3. This is a saving for the state. In a modern free world economy your benefit amount should not be decided by whether or not you are having sex with someone. It’s disgusting.
Getting on,
Yes they at WINZ now seem to have become a dictatorship instead of just a public service, as even we should expect some respect from this Government funded agency.
They’ve really lost sight of the “public service” aspect entirely.
It’s time for a Universal Basic Income which ends all this bureaucratic nonsense where beneficiaries and the poor have their private lives invaded to satiate the moral fantasies of the middle class and wealthy.
Agreed CHRISF YOU ARE 1000% CORRECT.
THEN THE LOSS OF RESPECT WOULD DISAPPEAR THEN.
USURY is what this jonkey nact government is about and it is contrary to what the founding values and principles of egalitarian New Zealand was all about…and it is a violation of Maori culture and heritage
Definition of usury:
…the action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest.
…”the medieval prohibition on usury”
…synonyms: extortionate money lending, shylocking; informal loan-sharking
archaic…interest at unreasonably high rates.
A history of Usuary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
Usury (/ˈjuːʒəri/[1][2]) is, today, the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender. Originally, usury meant interest of any kind. A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors.
Historically in Christian societies, and in many Islamic societies today, charging any interest at all can be considered usury.[3][4][5] Someone who practices usury can be called a usurer, but a more common term in contemporary English is loan shark.
The term may be used in a moral sense—condemning taking advantage of others’ misfortunes—or in a legal sense where interest rates may be regulated by law.
Historically, some cultures (e.g., Christianity in much of Medieval Europe, and Islam in many parts of the world today) have regarded charging any interest for loans as sinful.
Some of the earliest known condemnations of usury come from the Vedic texts of India.[6]
Similar condemnations are found in religious texts from Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the term is riba in Arabic and ribbit in Hebrew).[7] At times, many nations from ancient China to ancient Greece to ancient Rome have outlawed loans with any interest. Though the Roman Empire eventually allowed loans with carefully restricted interest rates, the Christian church in medieval Europe banned the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change)…
It is the measure of a society’s humanity and sense of justice how we treat our most vulnerable.
So far we seem to be falling well short in practically every measurable way.
I am no longer proud to be a Kiwi.
Me neither Sally’s husband.
I came home 17yrs ago from Canada where I lived for 15yrs and in Canada when you got ill or out of work the system gave you respect not like this we have now.
I am ashamed NZ under John Key has come to this mean spirited hateful work we have to endure in NZ today where the rich are rewarded but the 90% are abused and treated indifferently as their human rights are trampled on by these autocrats in Government, – now it’s time for a change.
Can we become a state of Canada?
So what happens to the homeless presently housed in motels during the peak/holiday season?
Oh yes, that’s right, turf them out back out on the streets!
How bad does this situation have to get, before the rest of NZ stands up in solidarity with our less fortunate Kiwi citizens? Time to organize and become active in some civil disobedience I think! The streets are there for the taking.
To not do anything positive, is to totally ignore the plight of impoverished Kiwi families living rough!
I thought debt slavery was something that happened in Asia or Africa.
Now we have it in New Zealand.
It used to be that the government existed to serve the people, now National has redefined the government role so that now it exists to build its own autocratic empire of corruption, secrecy and political intimidation.
That’s what the KGB used to do in Russia.
This article/case drives me up the wall. It’s beyond belief. Is this case still going? Can they go to the U.N or something? I can’t feel more sick than I do at the thought of some wank sitting at the Ministry table of judgement and going, hmmm, no. This one female individual who is already living on the breadline will have to pay for her human instincts and reproductive capacities. She will die in debt to us, let that be a lesson to her that you cannot be both poor and virile, and in and out of a relationship, and a victim of circumstance. No no, you simply cannot be those things.
Debt servitude for life to The Ministry and a jail sentence leaving the children to fend for themselves, followed by gruel and water. That is fair. This isn’t the Taliban – we don’t shoot women in the back of the head for having sex!
Very good. I’m off home to listen to Vivaldi and drink brandy with my “mistress” before wife comes home.