Anna Casey-Cox: Welfare doled out with doses of cruelty and inhumanity

Why can't we have a culture of clarity, transparency and helpfulness at Work and Income? Photo / Stratford Press, File

Opinion

OPINION

When our son was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes, we experienced firsthand how humiliating and dehumanising it can be engaging with Work and Income.

The diabetes clinical team from the local health board had told us that my son was entitled to a benefit to cover some of the expenses involved with having Type 1, including
prescription costs and treatments.

But the moment we arrived at Work and Income, the judgment began.

With pinched eyes, the case worker looked at me and with a dismissive tone told us her daughter had asthma and she had survived with no help – and what made us different? She also relayed her knowledge on what she considered to be a healthy diet. Of course, Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease.

The final straw that led us to completely disengage from the welfare system and any potential support was the requirement to provide a letter of evidence from a doctor every few months proving that our son still had Type 1 diabetes, despite it being a lifelong condition – there is no known cure.

Every day, people with disabilities, people who are unwell and people on benefits, face these same realities at Work and Income. Fifty-four per cent of people receiving income support have some kind of disability or access need.

Relaying your story over and over, providing proof and evidence just to get the support you need is exhausting.

But what makes us reel with mixed emotions, is that sometimes people do have better experiences – pretty good ones in fact. We are pleased to hear it. But how can it be fair that some do and some don't?

When it comes to basic human needs, how can "the luck of draw" feature as such a significant factor in the decision-making process?

Rhonda is part of our network of organisations requesting an inquiry into how the organisational structures and processes, the work culture, and training of employees at MSD, enable MSD to fulfil its obligations to whānau in need.

Rhonda has a chromosome 17 irregularity which gives her dyspraxia-specific learning disability and austic traits. Rhonda also has cerebral palsy.

From the time Rhonda applied to Work and Income for support, she has never been asked to prove any of this again.

The level of support provided is another issue - Rhonda has very tight budgets each week to get by - but at least her ongoing need for support is acknowledged.

And then there is Martin – also part of our network. Martin needed the job seeker support benefit for a time. He had a pretty good experience - and was left to focus on finding potential employment opportunities with friendly monthly in-person check-ins that focused on ways he could improve his job search. He soon found a job and was back on his feet.

But this was only after Martin had managed to apply for a benefit, which proved to be a more difficult process.

At the time, Martin had started a relationship, but wasn't sure whether it qualified financially under Work and Income's definition. Not wanting to be dishonest, or make a mistake, he contacted Work and Income for clarification, but was confused when the employee in question wouldn't tell him, instead advising him to put it down "if he
felt that it fit".

The majority of stories we hear are less than positive overall. The mixed bag of experience definitely veers on the side of negative, often confusing or demanding, and sometimes cruel.

However, good experiences can happen, so our question is - why can't they happen for everyone?

Anna Casey-Cox. Photo / Supplied

Poverty Action Waikato is part of a network of organisations calling for the inquiry.

We are concerned that a variety of factors may be limiting the quality and responsiveness of the support that whānau can access, which in turn limits the ability of children, whānau and communities, to thrive. This is particularly concerning during Covid-19 lockdown and restrictions, when an urgency of support is required.

We want a culture of clarity, transparency and helpfulness at Work and Income.

Without this, whānau can feel unsure of what is required from them and whether the person they are speaking to is there to actually help them or to find excuses to avoid helping them.

Pressure on staff to meet with many people may also result in rushed interactions and poorer service quality.

Training of MSD employees is vital. Whānau should be able to expect strong knowledge of the MSD's rules and processes when speaking to Work and Income staff. If there is not a solid foundation of this knowledge among front-facing staff, then whānau inevitably run into difficulties when they cannot get clear and correct answers to questions about what staff may be asking of them, and what processes they need to go through to access help.

The MSD has many aspirational documents, one of which is Te Pae Tata. This document outlines what it would look like if the MSD was successful in supporting Māori communities. The document describes a number of cultural shifts that are required, including Mana Manaaki, which in action is described as the MSD providing a positive experience every time, including building respect, trust, listening without judgment and to be open and fair. Such cultural shifts would be beneficial for all whānau accessing Work and Income for support.

It is clear that the aspirations, outlined in Te Pae Tata, are not being met. If they were, the agencies making the call for an inquiry, would not be hearing the distressing stories that they do.

Positive stories do exist, but we need consistent positive experiences for everyone. We need a cultural shift in our welfare provision and we need it with urgency.

• Anna Casey-Cox is Poverty Action Waikato's researcher and advocate.