Questions for WINZ

Today the DomPost reports that Benjamin Easton, unemployed activist, has had his dole terminated.

This the trougher Adam wrote about yesterday.

Easton boasted about how he chose to be on the dole so he could ‘work’ at being an activist.

DomPost reports:-

Activist Benjamin Easton, 49, also revealed he had not had a job interview since he went on the dole nearly three years ago.

He met Work and Income for a work test yesterday after telling The Dominion Post he was on the benefit deliberately so he could bring the “people’s challenge to the courts” and that he was “perfectly capable of earning”.

Mr Easton said last night he had received a letter from Work and Income telling him he did not meet eligibility criteria and his benefit had been stopped as of yesterday.

Why did it take newspaper publicity to stop this rort?

This man has transgressed far more significantly than Phil Heatley appears to have done and unlike Heatley shows no signs of repentence.

The paper notes:-

The Social Security Act states that anyone receiving the dole has an obligation to look for work and be available to work.

So what have WINZ been doing about enforcing the law for the last 3 years?

Mr Easton said after the meeting that he had no intention of looking for paid work and had not applied for any jobs since going on the dole in 2007. “I am not going to stop doing what I’m doing.”

Who at WINZ approved payments to this man? On what grounds were payments approved? Surely there should be disciplinary action in respect of WINZ employees who did not take action on this matter!

Work and Income deputy chief executive Patricia Reade said all beneficiaries knew of their job-seeking obligations.

“This is a person who has a track record of challenging the system and by his own admission does not want a job.”

So Ms Reade, why was action not taken sooner? It would appear that the circumstances of Easton’s case may have been known for sometime looking at Ms Reade’s remarks. So again why was action not taken?

How many more cases of non-enforcement of the rules are lurking below the radar?

Just what is WINZ up to in allowing people like Easton and the Christchurch couple highlighted recently to break the rules?

Does WINZ think money grows on trees?

It would seem that WINZ should be looked into for failure in this and other matters. It is taxpayer money they spend.

Advertisement