About me: 

I conduct my own business as an ACC advocate representing ACC claimants on a day to day basis by providing individual day to day case management services, while also conducting reviews and appeals for ACC clients.

I have been a social welfare beneficiary advocate for 16 years and over that period of time I have provided my services free of charge to those in need of representation. 

I am the founding President of the Peoples Advocacy Society Inc. and continue to undertake SSAA appeals on behalf of beneficiaries but I am not as active in WINZ case management, as in previous years. 

I represent the Peoples Advocacy Society Inc. as a member of the Advocates Committee that acts as an advisory body to the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development who reports to the Minister, Mr Maharey. 

In conjunction with two other advocates I have been an advocate’s representative on the working party for Special Benefit initiated by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development. This working party was set up following the decision that was issued on Special Benefit by the Social Security Appeal Authority in 2000. 

I also represent the Peoples Advocacy Society Inc. on the Committee of the Beneficiary Advocates Federation of New Zealand.

I have had a special interest on Special Benefit law since 1989. In 1994 I slept and fasted outside Parliament for 12 days in protest at the unlawful Special Benefit policy implemented at that time by the National Government. The then Minister of Social Welfare publicly instructed the Income Support service to be “more fair and reasonable” in the way that Special Benefit was to be considered by Income Support staff, which saw a change in attitude until the Minister was replaced.  

In 2000 I conducted an appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority on behalf of a single parent in which the Authority agreed with my submission that WINZ was assessing Special Benefit entitlement in a manner that was contrary to the law, thereby depriving applicants to entitlement. 

As a result of the Social Security Appeal Authority decision thousands of beneficiaries now qualify for Special Benefit when previously departmental policy resulted in deprivation. The actual annual cost to Government through the rise in numbers is estimated to be in excess of $300m annually. 

What is my motivation? 

I act from no political persuasion in the pursuit of justice for the poor and disadvantaged, as I hold the belief that this is the responsibility of society as a whole regardless of political, spiritual or ethnic identity.  

The determination by this Government to eliminate Special Benefit by passing through Parliament unheralded legislation within the Working for Families package, which is claimed to be focused on assisting the disadvantaged, is in my personal opinion a deception when the limitations of the replacement assistance has no discretionary power to cover the eventualities of those who may have a genuine need for Government assistance. 

The replacement temporary assistance is nothing more than a cost cutting measure aimed at avoiding the responsibility by Government to ensure that primary social welfare assistance for the poor and needy is appropriately funded.

Special Benefit has kept past Governments honest at times of unreasonable benefit cuts even if only in retrospect, whereas the temporary assistance programme will be a license for politicians to do what ever they want if there is a determination to neglect the moral responsibility to meet deprived families basic genuine needs.

I believe that regardless of where our individual political preference may reside that we have a collective responsibility to ensure that our politicians ‘do what is right’. We must all have the moral fortitude to stand in the gap in the protection of the poor. 

Please forward the standard protest letter to The Prime Minister expressing your concern, as an encouragement to this administration to rethink its position on the temporary assistance legislation that is due to take effect in 2006. 

I AM NOT AGAINST PRUDENT FISCAL MANAGEMENT BY GOVERNMENT, AFTER ALL WE ALL PAY TAXES,  BUT THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE REMOVAL OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE SAFETY NET WILL GO FAR BEYOND ANY SHORT TERM SAVINGS THAT MAY BE CLAIMED.