Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Re this topic, it pays to stay in touch with what is going on in the UK, in Britain, as that is where much of the "reform ideas" we have adopted here in New Zealand are coming from:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/
http://dpac.uk.net/It is an evolving issue, or policy area, and there is a lot that needs to be answered and addressed, but I hear and read nothing that MSD are offering to clarify their policy and evaluation of it.
So while we have an election campaign, I would expect that at least some opposition party would raise questions, but so far I am shocked and concerned about the suspicious "silence". Do they have any "idea" about what goes on, I must ask, it seems not, not even the Minister, answering questions on The Nation last weekend, and just repeating the same story all over again, about work being the only solution, and about cost saving measures, none else.
I also hear and see NOBODY in the media challenge and ask MSD about the health and disability aspects of the new "work ability" regime. Are they not up to it, fearing the "legal" challenges, or just totally indifferent and disinterested?
It is not a good look that any of the affected get, left out in the cold.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
"Puts me in mind of an article written by Audrey Young way back in 2010.
An interview with Bill English….just hitting his straps as Minister of Finance."Thanks for that link to the Herald article from 2010, Rosemary.
Yes, Bill English is one of the main "planners" of the agenda they now follow. I have more info going back to what National did when in government up to 1999. In the mid 1990s they did already then plan to take similar steps as they have now, regarding work ability assessments and so. But as they were in government with NZ first, only so much could be done then, as Winston and his party kept a brake on some things National wanted to bring in. They later ran a trial for work ability assessments, but it was something they never managed to introduce and implement as nation wide practice, as they lost the election in 1999.
Labour had a slightly different idea about welfare policy, so they applied a more measured and moderate approach, but nevertheless brought in the Principal and Regional Health and Disability Advisors, and that horrible top dog Dr Bratt (likening benefit dependence to "drug dependence").
Once National was back in government, they swiftly made plans to continue with what had been planned in the mid to late 1990s, and more.
Also did Paula Bennett state, that they were looking at using measures that ACC have been using, to get sick and disabled on benefits back into work. As for ACC, we know what happened there, with their "exit strategy" for the more severe and costly cases. A fair few were off-loaded onto benefits, and now they are being harassed by WINZ to look for "suitable" employment.
It is all an "actuarial approach" now, and becomes less humane, the further they progress. I dread what they will do should National get a third term, and should Bennett, English and Key feel emboldened to "save" yet more costs.
We will get even less prospect of getting any info on policy evaluation in that case.
-
“But Andrew and Gavin also agreed that the fact that media organisations either bury the undecided vote or don’t report it at all is a problem.”
The polls are serving as an instrument that is like a “self fulfilling prophecy”, so to say. We get them all the times, and there is NO mention of the non voters, the uncommitted and so forth. Of course, we know, the conservatives tend to have more loyal and committed voters, many being from the older generation, and hence National is getting favours there.
Many younger potential voters are not so party committed, may change, and are also not so open to make firm commitments in polls. So they are the big unpredictable force. There are also many more mature non committed voters, and with all these not showing in the polls, the election is wide open, and polls we get presented may mean damned little.
I also question whether the “committed” polled voters are so sure about their commitment. We have a rather one sided media, I fear, and the reporting on events, policies and so is not thorough, is rather superficial, and at worst of times abysmally lacking, focusing on scandal, on intrigues, word games and more.
So if we have more solid reporting, more facts and info presented, the whole picture can change swiftly. I get it that most leading media “persons” seem to favour National, simply for their own personal interests and bias, being better represented by that party and the PM, or they tend to follow the “crowd” and “trend”.
That can be challenged and changed, and much may depend on how Labour, David Cunliffe as leader, and the rest of the opposition may shape up and communicate over the coming weeks. As soon as tomorrow we may get more from Labour, coming from their conference, as to what they will do, communicate and potentially achieve. It is still early days, and New Zealanders are generally NOT political experts and hard core followers, they can change their views rather suddenly and unpredictably, dependent on what they perceive as being favourable for them, and in the better interest medium to longer term.
Let us wait and see, and perhaps be surprised.
-
Further to Angela's last comment: A few years ago Sue Bradford tried to bring a bill into Parliament, when she was still with the Greens, seeking an amendment to the Social Security Act, to allow appeals beyond Medical Appeal Boards, and to also allow some other fairer steps under social security legislation. But as National had then already taken over as government, it was never allowed to go anywhere, and since then she left Parliament.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Angela Hart,
Acclaim Otago have done a great job and achieved something, taking issues to the UN. But WINZ beneficiaries have too little history in working together, and they are more fragmented and even more marginalised, so it is a struggle to even get some to speak up or out about what they experience. Auckland Action Against Poverty will have a lot to say about that.
Yes, ideally more action and more concerted action is needed, but doing it is not that easy. There is so much fear amongst those on benefits, they rather tow the line of MSD and WINZ, and in some ways it resembles the way the jews under the Nazis were trying all to save their own skins, making compromises, and not daring to rock the boat, as they really fear losing all, should they not do so.
It is a sad and vicious situation many face, and it is very depressing. One would have thought, that such persons as Professor Gluckman would have the decency to speak up, and to remind the government of their responsibilities. I fear things have now got out of control and much more serious damage may need to happen, before any of the mentioned parties and stakeholders may review what they are doing.
As you comment correctly, many advocates and other services depend on government funding also, but that has been cut to the bone, make no doubt as to why!
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Angela Hart,
Thanks for your reply, Angela, and yes, I must concede, even High Court and higher court rulings may be circumvented by the legislative. What the government did was they "qualified" the courts' verdicts and interpreted it their own way, and then made a new law, that offered abysmally poor "help" to the affected carers, and denied a new legal challenge for the cases that had been brought.
And natural justice is constantly ignored in legislation now, as it was with parts of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Act! There are discriminatory provisions in the Social Security Act now, that were brought in under that amending Act. Also have there been many breaches of natural justice in the way that sick and disabled beneficiaries have been treated when "assessed" and examined by WINZ's own "designated doctors" (paid and trained by them), and who had to go to that useless Medical Appeal Board for hearings (panel members are all appointed by MSD). By the way, there is NO way to proceed with a challenge of a MAB decision and take it further to a court! Their decision is final, and only a judicial review may be a remedy, but that is only possible where there was a breach of law in the MAB decision.
The law has indeed become a farce, I fear, and the limitations under legal aid now, they stop so many from taking action that is needed.
It gets worse, the Prime Minister has a Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, and even he does not seem to be taking a stand on the way sick and disabled are being assessed under new provisions and with using "questionable science". See the following post he wrote on in "nature" on 12 March this year, but read especially the comments below!
http://www.nature.com/news/policy-the-art-of-science-advice-to-government-1.14838
To my knowledge there has been NO comment coming from Dr Gluckman on matters and questions raised by someone there! So we have a Chief Science Advisor who does not dare to speak up and hold his government to account.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Angela Hart,
Angela, the ONLY place, where you can achieve anything that will result in binding decisions, or at least precedents setting legal standards, is the High Court and other courts above it!
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Angela Hart,
Angela, I have had some dealings with the Ombudsmen Office. It was clearly pointed out to me, that all they can do is make recommendations and issue reports, as the Ombudsman Act apparently states, but they cannot enforce these. They are not binding on the agencies, departments or institutions that they may be directed at.
So at best, an Ombudsman recommendation containing their view, will at best be "noted" and considered for future conduct, but is not mandatory to be followed.
Same like the Health and Disability Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and other public officers, they have a lot of discretion as to what to investigate and recommend, but little actual power to enforce much at all. They can though refer matters to other authorities to deal with them, but even that does not mean those will act in your interest.
These public offices were brought in long ago, to make it look good, as if the public and affected had any real "right" to take action, but in reality, they are all just "buffers" or hurdles, to keep people from taking government agencies and other agencies to court. The HDC had over 1,600 complaints last year, and only 60 or so were formally investigated, of which 42 cases had breaches of the Code the HDC "enforces" established. Few ever were referred to the Director of Proceedings. The HDC, same like other Commissioners, same as the Ombudsman, mostly use discretion to sort things out with parties involved, which does not result in all that much in the way of sanctions, binding actions or whatever.
We need a law change, to bring about a system, where they can actually be forced to take certain actions, and enforce the recommendations they make.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Michael Fletcher,
Michael - Quote:
"In fact that report draws a lot on the Taylor Fry data. Interestingly, it has a section called "Off Benefit Outcomes" which I thought sounded promising but which turns out simply to report exit rates from benefit."Yes, this is totally disappointing, and I challenge the Prime Minister's, the Finance Minister's and Paula Bennett's frequent claims that 1,500 clients go off benefits into work every week (or is it every month?). There is NO proof for that. Many more "disappear" somewhere else, it seems, and there are NO clear statistics, on where they go. Anecdotal evidence tells me, that an increasing number do not even bother applying for benefits anymore, given it is made so difficult to qualify after "pre benefit obligations" and so. Others may simply be disqualified under questionable, "rigorous" terms they apply now at WINZ. So a fair few younger ones may stay as couch surfers with friends or family, or as female "clients" choose to go into relationships of whatever kind, for the mere purpose of getting some financial help to survive. Many sick and disabled, who cannot defend themselves against demanding case managers, as they do not know the law and their rights, will likely fall into categories just mentioned.
This is by the way, how Treasury seem to be doing their calculations:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2013/13-01/14.htmBy looking at their recently published MSD "performance report", there are some revealing aspects to consider, like this one, as quoted from below table for people receiving a "main benefit":
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/evaluation/investment-approach/key-findings.html"The numbers of beneficiaries in the table above will differ from officially reported figures. The main reasons are:
Official numbers are reported immediately at the end of each month, whereas the data for the valuation is collected one month after the valuation date to allow for back-dated administration adjustments
The valuation counts partners as separate clients whereas the official count does not"So that basically means, their projected costs for people on benefits count more people as independent beneficiaries, as there really are, as couples will have one person receiving a main benefit at a (lower) couple's rate, which is not the same as having two individuals receive the main benefit rate as independent persons!
The way they project costs seems to be based on inflated cost calculations, and that seems to be just one flaw in all this kind of reporting.
The reason why numbers for Supported Living beneficiaries, and deferred Jobseekers (with sickness, injury and disability) may not have decreased as some may have expected, that may be because the reforms are still just being gradually implemented, and have not been applied with the full intended push as yet.
The following post - including a transcript of an interview with "Director for Welfare Reforms" at MSD, Sandra Kirikir, reveals how they work now at WINZ:
-
From the post, regarding OIA response refusal by MSD:
"Two reasons were given. The first was to protect the conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinion. The second was that because the information is under active consideration the wider public interest of effective government would not be best served by release."Hah, this sounds very much like practices common in authoritarian states, e.g. dictatorships, does it not? How do we know it is in the public interest, or not so? Lack of transparency and secrecy do not serve the interests of the public, as this is in an area of policy, that is not about the security of the nation, like defence, intelligence gathering, foreign affairs, crucial trade deals and what else there may be.
This is a cheap, poorly justified cop-out, nothing else, by MSD and the Minister.
I hope the Ombudsman does her/his job in this, as we deserve to be informed!