ACCforum: The new and brutal, WINZ. - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The new and brutal, WINZ.

#1 User is offline   angryman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:47 PM

My knee injury which has been a big problem for me over the past thirty two years, has once again put me on my ass (literally). The recent TKR has given way,causing further damage to what little ligament structure I have left, and I am unable to work.
I was managing to do about 30 hours a week, on a part time casual basis.
As what little income I had has now stoped, I find myself once again at the doors of WINZ with my hand out, for a hand up. But since my last visit several months ago, going through the same process from a client point of view has now become a lot tougher, and the seminar I attended today puts you in light of that fact in no uncertain terms.

Gone is the somewhat shy demure and friendy, woman that ran my last seminar.
Say hello to the new over bearing ,assertive, dictatorial , less than friendly woman , who makes it quite clear from the outset who is in charge, and what she and the system demands from us. She reminded me of some of my school teachers from way back in the day, I would not have been surprised at any stage to have a ruler on the hand , or my ear pulled.

It might also be worth noting that the seminar started fifteen minutes late, and no apology was given, I was told by the receptionist that booked me in, if I was late I would be turned away. When I mentioned this to the woman running the seminar, she told me that she gives fifteen minutes grace for those arriving late. so it would appear that the receptionist was either unaware of this fact, or she lied.
I was fifteen minutes early for the seminar, and then had to wait a further fifteen minutes.so I was in fact disadvantaged for being respectfully early.

This woman demanded we turn off our phones, and showed us where the door was if we didn't like the process we were about to be put through. Several times during the seminar various people including myself were also again reminded where the door was. In my case she even opened the door for me, and gestured me to leave. This woman was very rude.

I was asked to disclose my situation, work history, and other private issues within the seminar forum, of course I refused to do so, I was forced to listen to other peoples very personal details. One woman was escorted from the room in tears, it turns out she wasn't even supposed to be there in the first place.
At one stage I was verbally attacked by another client, telling me to stop asking stupid questions, when in fact I hadn't asked any, I was simply responding to the over aggressive questioning from the woman in charge. I had to sit next to a young fellow from West Auckland who was on something, eyes like road maps, and more yap than a drovers bitch.
I found the entire process very uncomfortable, and unpleasant, and I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. The dictatorial style of meeting leadership I found intimidating, and bewildering.
This so called work seminar, felt more like a prison induction.
I have no problem with anything that they require me to do, I just wish they could do it in a more caring and respectful manner. The process is brutal and demeaning, and client privacy seems to be out the back door. All this just to pick up some paper work so I could move on to the next step.
Anyway I got my what to do now list, next step is the Planning and Assessment Module, or PAM.
Lets hope Pam has a better personality.

On arriving home I rang the 0800 number to book in for my PAM, and was told the earliest appointment was almost three weeks away, by which time I will have been without income for five weeks.
Of course WINZ is my only hope, after having been dumped from ACC earnings related compensation.
0

#2 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 17 November 2013 - 10:28 PM

Hang in there as always angryman
0

#3 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:04 AM

angryman - how shocking, it seems to get even worse than what I had heard and thought.

I saw Paula Bennett on TV yesterday morning, delivering the usual trivialising drivel and media fodder, which sadly the mainstream media in NZ gobble up from her without questioning further. This abominable, arrogant woman, I must think everytime I see her.

But re your situation, why do they send you to a "seminar", when you are supposed to have serious incapacity? Have you ensured you got all the records and reports needed from your GP, specialists and so? That is absolutely important now, whether you deal with ACC or WINZ. Even if the costs to see the doctor or other specialist may be high, try to get the money and all reports, and present them. Do insist on them to be taken serious, if they claim that you must see a "designated doctor" or one of their "specialists", challenge them, and negotiate to see one you know and trust. They have too many "hatchet" doctors on their books, and some do most the assessments for WINZ. Beware of those ones!!!

I am not quite up to the various new approaches they take now, as they seem to change processes every week or month. There is little transparency. I would challenge WINZ on EVERYTHING they do now, as they are trying to knock people off claims, no matter how serious an injury or health issue you have.

If you are having a bad knee, shoulder or whatever, they will try to argue, you can do "sedentary work" (in sitting). They will possibly try to lay that onto you and others, even if there is no realistic job assembling ball point pens, or whatever they may fance as "hypothetical" job. But they pressure doctors now to look only at the "medical" side of things that may impact on ability to work. So if you have a bad back, knee or whatever, they will try and claim you can still do something, even if it is just 15 or 16 hours a week.

I am really sorry to hear your trials and story. It is very distressing. I wish I could help. If you leave somewhere near a larger centre, consider also seeing an advocate, as some of them are now pretty much onto it, what can be done.

Do not give up, do not let them take you for a ride, they will most likely try to do so though.

Next year will bring even more worrying changes, from February, with outsourced, supposedly "independent assessors", more like the ATOS way they have done in the UK.

I fear they are using persons like you to "trial" the "new approach", so be FIRM, insist on existing records to be taken note of, and to have your doctor and so on your side. Best of luck, if that can encourage a bit.

Also perhaps look up the topic "What to do if you are required to see a designated doctor" here on ACC Forum!!!

Marc

0

#4 User is offline   angryman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 18 November 2013 - 07:07 AM

Don't worry Mark, I am not taking any shit, I have for the last six months been recording via my pen cam every meeting.(including the one I have mentioned above).

The new process as far as I have been told, involves all applicants for any benefit having to go through this bullshit. It seems to be some sort of a culling off or sorting out prior to being given a benefit. We were told that we might not be given a benefit, but may be required to work, even those like me with injuries.If we refuse such work, we may receive nothing.

We were also told that Winz had a large number of vacancies on their books, because of the seasonal aspect of the area.
I am off to see my doctor today, and will get a medical certificate stating what my capabilities are. Judging by the tone of the meeting I attended, I am expecting a fight.

It was stated by the woman who ran the meeting that Winz no longer has the staff to give individual attention, this was born out by the fact that there was no one at the reception desk when I arrived,and for fifteen minutes people were coming in and sitting down.

I have other video of my experiences at WINZ, including one where a woman and her partner were spoken to by a staff member in the waiting area, Their personal situation, financial situation and other very personal aspects of their life were discussed at length within ear shot of about ten people.

I would be very happy if they could find suitable work for me to do in my condition, but working in the spud paddocks is a no brainer.
0

#5 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:35 PM

.
0

#6 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 12:11 AM

"It was stated by the woman who ran the meeting that Winz no longer has the staff to give individual attention, this was born out by the fact that there was no one at the reception desk when I arrived,and for fifteen minutes people were coming in and sitting down."

Angryman - That is interesting to hear. The truth is: They now have certain staff members put more focus and pressure on "case managing" sole parents and also sick and disabled, as they try to get more off them off benefits. The focus is with that especially on younger ones, but also older ones get more attention now. Even though the government has budgeted a hundred and fifty million extra for that and other purposes, it must mean, that the use of more staff to "case manage" leads to other staff not coping, or not being used to do jobs they used to do.

It is good to hear that your are onto it, and that you prepare yourself for later challenges.

They may accept your doctor's certificate at first, but it is unsure what benefit they may put you on. I suspect they will try to still put you onto the "Jobseeker" benefit, with "deferred" work capability testing. That means they may treat you at first like a former "sickness beneficiary". They are now making it extremely hard for people to get the Supported Living benefit (formerly invalid's benefit). I hope your doctor is a fair and reasonable one and will put onto the certificate what is necessary. Make sure you stress the impairment and how it will make it impossible for you to do any work with the damage you suffered.

WINZ may challenge the doctor's certificate and then send you to one of their "designated doctors". That is when you need to be careful and prepare yourself well, as at least some of these "designated doctors" are true "hatchet doctors". They have certain ones they prefer, and they often do the bulk of exams and assessments for WINZ. One of WINZ's health or disability advisors will then look at the DDs recommendation, and mostly they will support it, and then "recommend" to the case manager to decide as they see fit.

If they try a dirty on you, you can challenge a decision that is unacceptable to you by going to a Medical Appeal Board. There are some other posts on this forum, where you will find a bit more on them, so I suggest you do a site search for Medical Appeal Board, Medical Board or MAB.

WINZ appoints the 3 members on such a board, and two are usually again "designated doctors". So they will again follow the line that WINZ expects, to rather look at what you "can do", rather than what you "cannot do". You can see, it leaves a lot of room for them to maneuver, but be not fooled, they have to apply reason, objectivity and fairness (natural justice), and often they fail to properly follow that. In any case get everything well documented, and be firm and assert yourself, as some case managers will try to push you all the way.

0

#7 User is offline   angryman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:06 AM

Having been through this process four months ago, the changes are very obvious to me, and are all too familiar. I have been exited twice by ACC in thirty odd years. I have been in and out of casual work for almost three years now, since my TKR.

Unable to live on the dole has forced me to work on my injuries. This has only caused the injury to worsen to a point where I now need another TKR, using different hardware that provides extra lateral support, that is my latest prognosis.

My problem is that I am not prepared to face further surgery, without 12 months of reasonable income behind me, so that I can receive ERC from ACC.
Otherwise I could be faced with being on WINZ for ever if the operation is not successful.

Unfortunately I am only fit now for sedentary work, which provides very little opportunity for me to earn a decent wage because I am not skilled in this area.
My fear is that WINZ will force me to work in some low paid inane job, counting paper clips or something.

I am demanding that I receive good individual case management from WINZ, and intend to be very proactive in the process.
I have been screwed by ACC, and now feel as if I am about to be screwed by WINZ, as it would appear WINZ is now implementing the same client management protocols to cull the herd that worked so well for ACC.

I am prepared to work with WINZ, because it is imperative that I find a lucrative job, but I am not prepared to be thrown back into physical work, as I have to save what supportive structure remains around the joint if I am to have a satisfactory outcome.

It is a ridicules situation I find myself in, but be assured I am nothing but assertive, and I have to fight or perish. My back is against the wall.
0

#8 User is offline   angryman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 19 November 2013 - 08:42 AM

I would like to suggest that anyone dealing with WINZ or ACC purchase a devise, and covertly video all meetings.
Obviously it gives you proof of any wrong doings should you need it, but it is also very useful to be able to go over the tape at your leisure and study certain aspects of the debate. Things that missed in the heat of the moment, such as body language, or things happening in the back round.
And don't just take the camera to meetings where you might be expecting trouble, take it and use it always, because sometimes the most innocuous events such as an induction seminar can be very enlightening.

My pen cam is the best $120.00 I have ever spent.
0

#9 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:54 PM

angryman -

Re: "Unfortunately I am only fit now for sedentary work, which provides very little opportunity for me to earn a decent wage because I am not skilled in this area.
My fear is that WINZ will force me to work in some low paid inane job, counting paper clips or something."


"I am prepared to work with WINZ, because it is imperative that I find a lucrative job, but I am not prepared to be thrown back into physical work, as I have to save what supportive structure remains around the joint if I am to have a satisfactory outcome."

You are in a dilemma many are faced with! Too sick or incapacitated to work, and otherwise not qualified or trained to do alternative work. With their new regime, WINZ will be extremely relentless on their approach. They will not accept that you lack qualification or former experience, I fear, and then try to put you into some kind of course, to make you "employable" to do almost whatever (low paid, part time or full time work). The non existence of a job at any given time does not convince them that a person cannot work. You will be faced with a self assessment (beware of loaded or ambiguous questions), interviews with WINZ staff, and if that does not get you into any course or any kind of hypothetical "work ability" (possibly challenging your "motivation"), they will eventually try a "designated doctor" examination, or from Feb. next year apparently outside "assessors".

As you seem to be prepared to work and earn some income, your only hope may be doing some training qualifying you to do something in sitting that actually pays more than a minimum wage. Your age may determine, whether they will put much pressure on you, as the older you are, the more it may seem unlikely that they can expect you to do or train to do something you never did. "Reasonableness" will compel them to try to be fair in that respect. Yet there are enough case managers that have a completely twisted view of that is "fair" and "reasonable".

Or course taping and filming helps, but under the law, it may become problematic using any recordings in legal disputes, because secret filming and so are breaches of privacy, I understand. I would need to have another look at the Privacy Act re that, but that is my first impression on it.

Best of luck!

0

#10 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:44 PM

One more comment to 'angryman' - have a read of this, I fear we will soon hear a fair few of such stories:


New Zealand Herald article of interest, click this link to find it:


http://www.nzherald....jectid=11158863



"Winz apologises to sick woman placed on wrong benefit"
0

#11 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 23 November 2013 - 03:09 PM

@ angryman and others, who make efforts to do certain "recordings" -

You may well know this already, but this must always be considered, when recording conversations, or filming meetings, without notifying the other party or parties involved:


http://www.legislati.../DLM329804.html
http://www.legislati.../DLM329834.html
http://www.legislati.../DLM329814.html



I looked up the Crimes Act to get some clarifications myself. Also do I know someone who did frequently record conversations without the knowledge or consent of others involved. I knew he was acting on tricky territory, at least in some cases.


"Part 9A
Crimes against personal privacy"


"216A
Interpretation

(1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—

intercept, in relation to a private communication, includes hear, listen to, record, monitor, acquire, or receive the communication either—

(a) while it is taking place; or

(b ) while it is in transit

interception device—

(a) means any electronic, mechanical, electromagnetic, optical, or electro-optical instrument, apparatus, equipment, or other device that is used or is capable of being used to intercept a private communication; but

(b ) does not include—

(i) a hearing aid or similar device used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to no better than normal hearing; or

(ii ) a device exempted from the provisions of this Part by the Governor-General by Order in Council, either generally or in such places or circumstances or subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the order

private communication—

(a) means a communication (whether in oral or written form or otherwise) made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but

(b ) does not include such a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so.


(2) Any Order in Council exempting a device from the provisions of this Part expires 2 years after it is made.


(2) A reference in this Part to a party to a private communication is a reference to—

(a) any originator of the communication and any person intended by the originator to receive it; and

(b ) a person who, with the express or implied consent of any originator of the communication or any person intended by the originator to receive it, intercepts the communication."



The following extract from the Crimes Act 1961 seems to clarify matters:


"216B
Prohibition on use of interception devices"


"(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally intercepts any private communication by means of an interception device.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the person intercepting the private communication—

(a) is a party to that private communication; or

(b ) does so pursuant to, and in accordance with the terms of, any authority conferred on him or her by or under—

(i) the Search and Surveillance Act 2012; or

(ii ) [Repealed]

(iii ) the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969; or

(iiia ) the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003; or

(iv) [Repealed]

(v) the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987.

(3) [Repealed]

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any monitoring of a prisoner call under section 113 of the Corrections Act 2004 or any interception of a private communication if the interception is authorised under section 189B of that Act.

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to the interception of private communications by any interception device operated by a person engaged in providing an Internet or other communication service to the public if—

(a) the interception is carried out by an employee of the person providing that Internet or other communication service to the public in the course of that person's duties; and

(b ) the interception is carried out for the purpose of maintaining that Internet or other communication service; and

(c ) the interception is necessary for the purpose of maintaining the Internet or other communication service; and

(d) the interception is only used for the purpose of maintaining the Internet or other communication service.

(6) Information obtained under subsection (5) must be destroyed immediately if it is no longer needed for the purpose of maintaining the Internet or other communication service.

(7) Any information held by any person that was obtained while assisting with the execution of a surveillance device warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 must, upon expiry of the warrant, be—

(a) destroyed immediately; or

(b ) given to the agency executing the warrant."



"216C
Prohibition on disclosure of private communications unlawfully intercepted"



"(1) Subject to subsection (2), where a private communication has been intercepted in contravention of section 216B, every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally—

(a) discloses the private communication, or the substance, meaning, or purport of the communication, or any part of it; or

(b ) discloses the existence of the private communication,—

if he knows that it has come to his knowledge as a direct or indirect result of a contravention of section 216B.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the disclosure is made—

(a) to a party to the communication or with the express or implied consent of such a party; or

(b ) in the course, or for the purpose, of—

(i) an investigation by the Police into an alleged offence against this section or section 216B; or

(ii ) giving evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings relating to the unlawful interception of a private communication by means of an interception device or the unlawful disclosure of a private communication unlawfully intercepted by that means; or

(iii ) giving evidence in any other civil or criminal proceeding where that evidence is not rendered inadmissible by the Evidence Act 2006 or section 25 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 or any other enactment or rule of law; or

(iv) determining whether the disclosure is admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings."



Comment:

Recording private conversations or meetings seems to be legal and acceptable if the person doing so is part to that conversation or meeting. But section 216C (2) (a) seems important to take note of, as it appears that publishing a recorded private conversation - without the consent and knowledge of the other party or parties involved - could represent a breach of the law. The situation could though become more "complex" and difficult to establish and prosecute, if information that is contained in such recordings is passed to the media, given the media has some extra protection. That protects the media, but could also still leave questions to be answered by the person who provided it to media.

I do not mean to criticise anyone for taking protective measures, it just seems to be important to know what the law states on all this.

We all know though, what powers the state has, e.g. police, SIS and GCSB, even some other agencies now.

0

#12 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,214
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 23 November 2013 - 09:17 PM

View PostMarc, on 23 November 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

@ angryman and others, who make efforts to do certain "recordings" -

You may well know this already, but this must always be considered, when recording conversations, or filming meetings, without notifying the other party or parties involved:


http://www.legislati.../DLM329804.html
http://www.legislati.../DLM329834.html
http://www.legislati.../DLM329814.html



I looked up the Crimes Act to get some clarifications myself. Also do I know someone who did frequently record conversations without the knowledge or consent of others involved. I knew he was acting on tricky territory, at least in some cases.


"Part 9A
Crimes against personal privacy"


"216A
Interpretation

(1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—

intercept, in relation to a private communication, includes hear, listen to, record, monitor, acquire, or receive the communication either—

(a) while it is taking place; or

(b ) while it is in transit

interception device—

(a) means any electronic, mechanical, electromagnetic, optical, or electro-optical instrument, apparatus, equipment, or other device that is used or is capable of being used to intercept a private communication; but

(b ) does not include—

(i) a hearing aid or similar device used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to no better than normal hearing; or

(ii ) a device exempted from the provisions of this Part by the Governor-General by Order in Council, either generally or in such places or circumstances or subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the order

private communication—

(a) means a communication (whether in oral or written form or otherwise) made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but

(b ) does not include such a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so.


(2) Any Order in Council exempting a device from the provisions of this Part expires 2 years after it is made.


(2) A reference in this Part to a party to a private communication is a reference to—

(a) any originator of the communication and any person intended by the originator to receive it; and

(b ) a person who, with the express or implied consent of any originator of the communication or any person intended by the originator to receive it, intercepts the communication."



The following extract from the Crimes Act 1961 seems to clarify matters:


"216B
Prohibition on use of interception devices"


"(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally intercepts any private communication by means of an interception device.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the person intercepting the private communication—

(a) is a party to that private communication; or

(b ) does so pursuant to, and in accordance with the terms of, any authority conferred on him or her by or under—

(i) the Search and Surveillance Act 2012; or

(ii ) [Repealed]

(iii ) the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969; or

(iiia ) the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003; or

(iv) [Repealed]

(v) the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987.

(3) [Repealed]

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any monitoring of a prisoner call under section 113 of the Corrections Act 2004 or any interception of a private communication if the interception is authorised under section 189B of that Act.

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to the interception of private communications by any interception device operated by a person engaged in providing an Internet or other communication service to the public if—

(a) the interception is carried out by an employee of the person providing that Internet or other communication service to the public in the course of that person's duties; and

(b ) the interception is carried out for the purpose of maintaining that Internet or other communication service; and

(c ) the interception is necessary for the purpose of maintaining the Internet or other communication service; and

(d) the interception is only used for the purpose of maintaining the Internet or other communication service.

(6) Information obtained under subsection (5) must be destroyed immediately if it is no longer needed for the purpose of maintaining the Internet or other communication service.

(7) Any information held by any person that was obtained while assisting with the execution of a surveillance device warrant issued under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 must, upon expiry of the warrant, be—

(a) destroyed immediately; or

(b ) given to the agency executing the warrant."



"216C
Prohibition on disclosure of private communications unlawfully intercepted"



"(1) Subject to subsection (2), where a private communication has been intercepted in contravention of section 216B, every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally—

(a) discloses the private communication, or the substance, meaning, or purport of the communication, or any part of it; or

(b ) discloses the existence of the private communication,—

if he knows that it has come to his knowledge as a direct or indirect result of a contravention of section 216B.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the disclosure is made—

(a) to a party to the communication or with the express or implied consent of such a party; or

(b ) in the course, or for the purpose, of—

(i) an investigation by the Police into an alleged offence against this section or section 216B; or

(ii ) giving evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings relating to the unlawful interception of a private communication by means of an interception device or the unlawful disclosure of a private communication unlawfully intercepted by that means; or

(iii ) giving evidence in any other civil or criminal proceeding where that evidence is not rendered inadmissible by the Evidence Act 2006 or section 25 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 or any other enactment or rule of law; or

(iv) determining whether the disclosure is admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings."



Comment:

Recording private conversations or meetings seems to be legal and acceptable if the person doing so is part to that conversation or meeting. But section 216C (2) (a) seems important to take note of, as it appears that publishing a recorded private conversation - without the consent and knowledge of the other party or parties involved - could represent a breach of the law. The situation could though become more "complex" and difficult to establish and prosecute, if information that is contained in such recordings is passed to the media, given the media has some extra protection. That protects the media, but could also still leave questions to be answered by the person who provided it to media.

I do not mean to criticise anyone for taking protective measures, it just seems to be important to know what the law states on all this.

We all know though, what powers the state has, e.g. police, SIS and GCSB, even some other agencies now.



You need to read the Jackson case from 2002 where as the judge Willy has made a ruling that supports the patients right to be recording their assessments for the purposes of keeping an accurate record of assessment.

From what I read and understand from the ruling it is wiser to Video record if you wish to possibly use it in a court as evidence, as it is more credible than a sound recording.

http://www.nzlii.org...C/2002/168.html

Your particular sections referenced are mainly about illegaly obtained or intercepted private conversations and the release of them.

No one breaches privacy by recording their assesments. B)
0

#13 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 24 November 2013 - 08:29 PM

@ REX - (09:17 pm, 23.11.13) -

thanks for that link. Yes, case law will likely give a clearer interpretation, and I agree, assessments and examinations should be allowed to be recorded. Regrettably that link to the case you mention is at least "temporarily unavailable". I will try again later.

0

#14 User is offline   angryman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 02 December 2013 - 11:22 AM

Some three weeks after making my first contact with WINZ seeking financial support, I finally was accepted on to Job Seeker Support.

The process was very stressful and demanding, and from the outset I was made to feel like a second class citizen, to say the least.

The induction seminar which I outlined in the first post, was a bloody horrible experience, which set a negative tone.
When I finally got to sit down with a case manager and discuss my individual situation,things actually happened quite quickly, the case manager was very pleasant and professional, and treated me with dignity and respect, unlike the bitch that ran the seminar.

It is worth mentioning however that had I not had a medical certificate, I would have been offered work, and would have been compelled to accept it or lose at least 50% of my entitlement.The form I had to sign made the 167 look like a post it note.
Getting the dole is now very conditional.The case manager was clearly not expecting me to arrive with a medical certificate, and studied it carefully trying to find some way of forcing me into work, and questioning much of what my doctor had stated on it.

The seminar is a process I am very familiar with, being a stock man from a farming back round. The clients are herded together, inspected, studied, and then marked up for removal.It is an evaluation to decide which pen they then place you into.

The case manager was surprised after studying my medical certificate when I said I am looking for work, and even more surprised to hear that I had in fact just found a full time job, which I start next week. I have been searching for such work for almost three years now, my injuries have made it very difficult.
Of course they will take credit for this, as their stats will show that after a couple of weeks on the dole I left for full time employment, when in fact their input was more hindering than helpful, and only served to stress me out, and distract me from my task.

One thing I am sure of is that the induction seminar I experienced is a complete crock, and the woman who ran it is a prize bitch. I am going to reveal the video of that day, and expose the wrongdoings. I am not sure who best to send it to, possibly an opposition MP.
0

#15 User is offline   unit1of2 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 845
  • Joined: 20-March 12

Posted 02 December 2013 - 11:34 AM

How about Kein Hague.....OR 60Mins...

Really pleases for you finding suitable work that accommodates your limitations. Well done, good work on your part! Sorry meant to read Kevin
0

#16 User is offline   angryman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 02 December 2013 - 11:51 AM

View Postunit1of2, on 02 December 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

How about Kein Hague.....OR 60Mins...

Really pleases for you finding suitable work that accommodates your limitations. Well done, good work on your part! Sorry meant to read Kevin



I am not going to give it to the media, I think it needs to be placed carefuly, and I will not be rushing in to it.

I have found work in a position that is administrative, (office work). I am in a lot of pain, and will need another operation, but have found an employer that is prepared to work with me because my expertise in the line of work I am entering is vast.

After three years I have rehabilitated myself, no thanks to ACC who dumped me onto WINZ, and no thanks to WINZ, who obviously were about to dump me as well.

ACC and I have unfinished business,and now that I have a good income I shall be engaging a lawyer to work on that.

There is an irony to my situation, in that I also have to work for at 52 weeks in order to receive ERC when I go under the knife, which is why I am not having the opperation now.


"I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees".
0

#17 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 02 December 2013 - 01:37 PM

Quoted from 'angryman' above:

"The seminar is a process I am very familiar with, being a stock man from a farming back round. The clients are herded together, inspected, studied, and then marked up for removal.It is an evaluation to decide which pen they then place you into."

Yes, I am also familiar with such "treatment", myself coming from a farming background as well!

Re your "medical certificate", be damned careful, have they "deferred you" from work testing responsibilities, as it seems, or are they still "assessing" this? I fear they may next come and ask you to see one of their "designated doctors". In that case do search the thread on ACC Forum that gives advice on what to do, if they come with that. It sounds like the case manager was not quite convinced. He or she are likely to refer it to their internal "Regional Health Advisor" or "Regional Disability Advisor", sitting at their regional office, and they may well send you to one of their preferred, hand-picked doctors. They have all been "trained" by their own Dr David Bratt, who is know for his bias!

As for your recording of that "seminar", have you considered loading it onto YouTube? That would then be your own "media", kind of thing!?

Otherwise, most MPs will do stuff all, I am afraid, but to give you "their advice" or "suggestion". It would have to go to one who is sincerely concerned about these issues, and only a few will be. Indeed perhaps Kevin Hague or Jan Logie may be an option. Jacinda Ardern may be interested, but I fear she would just advice to keep hum about the recording and do little with the information. Well, within Labour it is now Sue Moroney that looks after welfare, and Melissa Lee supports her. Annette King would be the one for health. I cannot see any of them being much assistance, to be honest.

As for your own fortunes, it seems you already have alternative work lined up. I hope it works out and that you can handle it. WINZ are indeed not much help at all when it comes to finding work. They just cater for the ones landing at the bottom of the cliff, and then they even harass the sick and disabled, trying to push them to do any kind of work they may be able to do for at least 15 hours a week. So much for "welfare" and "support" in 2013. I have been through it and know all about it.

Best of luck for your future work and well-being.

0

#18 User is offline   unit1of2 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 845
  • Joined: 20-March 12

Posted 02 December 2013 - 09:57 PM

View Postangryman, on 02 December 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

I am not going to give it to the media, I think it needs to be placed carefuly, and I will not be rushing in to it.

I have found work in a position that is administrative, (office work). I am in a lot of pain, and will need another operation, but have found an employer that is prepared to work with me because my expertise in the line of work I am entering is vast.

After three years I have rehabilitated myself, no thanks to ACC who dumped me onto WINZ, and no thanks to WINZ, who obviously were about to dump me as well.

ACC and I have unfinished business,and now that I have a good income I shall be engaging a lawyer to work on that.

There is an irony to my situation, in that I also have to work for at 52 weeks in order to receive ERC when I go under the knife, which is why I am not having the opperation now.


"I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees".



Good on you Angryman!! I like your quote to,,, :)/>

All the best to you and yours.....
0

#19 User is offline   Markieboy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: 05-March 13

Posted 10 December 2013 - 01:54 PM

WINZ is becoming an interesting beast with many stories starting to sound as familiar as the stories of those who have issues with ACC.

In early 2008 I needed a quadruple heart by-pass, and during the surgery received a brain injury as a result of debris showering my brain. Whilst trying for almost 2 years to find out what was wrong, in Nov 2009 my GP was forced to remove my commercial licenses from me which forced me to go onto Invalids Benefit with a interim diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. In Feb 2010 I was finally diagnosed with Post CABG Syndrome as a result of my By-Pass surgery 2 years earlier. A claim for treatment injury was lodged with ACC which has continued on to finally having a review in Nov this year (still waiting for result).

In Nov 2011 it was time for benefit review and despite having reports from my neurologist and ACC's Neurologist which both stated I had a brain injury but for different reasons, WINZ decided that I did not meet the criteria for the Invalids Benefit and was suitable to get out and work. I appealed their decision and went to see their designated Dr, who agreed with my neurologist and stated I was only able to work/study for 1 to 5 hours per week. Winz then reinstated my benefit for a further 2 years. Whilst talking with Winz, I discovered that the Southern Regional Health and Disability Advisor had made some interesting comments about my case so I asked to see a copy of the report. The Disability Advisor's comments where " That I claimed to have a brain injury" despite their being about 2 reports from my neurologist and 2 from ACC's which both clearly stated that I had suffered a brain injury. I laid a complaint with the Winz manager about this statement as it clearly was false.

Roll on to Nov 2013 and it was review time but this time there is a major complication. I no longer have a GP due to having to involve the Health and Disability Commission twice in the past 2 years and then in Sept laying a privacy complaint against my GP for lost notes. This was the final straw so I left the practice. A major issue though, is that in Invercargill it is almost impossible to find a new GP. So I had no GP to sign WINZ med certs and no neurologist in Invercargill either. Winz did extend my benefit to the day of my ACC review but after that I was in trouble, so my lawyer went to see WINZ and after a few discussion's my Lawyer rang me with the news that WINZ have accepted I suffered a brain injury and I would remain on the same benefit and would never be reassessed again. Interesting as I am only 55, so theoretically for the next 10 years never have to get med Certs again although if my ACC review is successful, it wont be an issue.

The other interesting thing is that I have learned that WINZ's health and disability advisor has no medical training at all, in fact they are a teacher turned social worker. What is more disturbing is that I have asked many times to WINZ staff "what medical qualifications this person has" and the answer has always been " I don't know". Good to see that WINZ are employing suitably qualified staff to be their medical advisors. Its almost the same as ACC staff who without medical qualifications are reading and analyzing complex medical reports and then making life changing decisions which are many times inaccurate and sometimes just blatantly wrong.
0

#20 User is offline   Marc 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 08-November 12

Posted 14 December 2013 - 01:46 AM

View PostMarkieboy, on 10 December 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

WINZ is becoming an interesting beast with many stories starting to sound as familiar as the stories of those who have issues with ACC.

In early 2008 I needed a quadruple heart by-pass, and during the surgery received a brain injury as a result of debris showering my brain. Whilst trying for almost 2 years to find out what was wrong, in Nov 2009 my GP was forced to remove my commercial licenses from me which forced me to go onto Invalids Benefit with a interim diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. In Feb 2010 I was finally diagnosed with Post CABG Syndrome as a result of my By-Pass surgery 2 years earlier. A claim for treatment injury was lodged with ACC which has continued on to finally having a review in Nov this year (still waiting for result).

In Nov 2011 it was time for benefit review and despite having reports from my neurologist and ACC's Neurologist which both stated I had a brain injury but for different reasons, WINZ decided that I did not meet the criteria for the Invalids Benefit and was suitable to get out and work. I appealed their decision and went to see their designated Dr, who agreed with my neurologist and stated I was only able to work/study for 1 to 5 hours per week. Winz then reinstated my benefit for a further 2 years. Whilst talking with Winz, I discovered that the Southern Regional Health and Disability Advisor had made some interesting comments about my case so I asked to see a copy of the report. The Disability Advisor's comments where " That I claimed to have a brain injury" despite their being about 2 reports from my neurologist and 2 from ACC's which both clearly stated that I had suffered a brain injury. I laid a complaint with the Winz manager about this statement as it clearly was false.

Roll on to Nov 2013 and it was review time but this time there is a major complication. I no longer have a GP due to having to involve the Health and Disability Commission twice in the past 2 years and then in Sept laying a privacy complaint against my GP for lost notes. This was the final straw so I left the practice. A major issue though, is that in Invercargill it is almost impossible to find a new GP. So I had no GP to sign WINZ med certs and no neurologist in Invercargill either. Winz did extend my benefit to the day of my ACC review but after that I was in trouble, so my lawyer went to see WINZ and after a few discussion's my Lawyer rang me with the news that WINZ have accepted I suffered a brain injury and I would remain on the same benefit and would never be reassessed again. Interesting as I am only 55, so theoretically for the next 10 years never have to get med Certs again although if my ACC review is successful, it wont be an issue.

The other interesting thing is that I have learned that WINZ's health and disability advisor has no medical training at all, in fact they are a teacher turned social worker. What is more disturbing is that I have asked many times to WINZ staff "what medical qualifications this person has" and the answer has always been " I don't know". Good to see that WINZ are employing suitably qualified staff to be their medical advisors. Its almost the same as ACC staff who without medical qualifications are reading and analyzing complex medical reports and then making life changing decisions which are many times inaccurate and sometimes just blatantly wrong.



Markieboy:

"Whilst talking with Winz, I discovered that the Southern Regional Health and Disability Advisor had made some interesting comments about my case so I asked to see a copy of the report. The Disability Advisor's comments where " That I claimed to have a brain injury" despite their being about 2 reports from my neurologist and 2 from ACC's which both clearly stated that I had suffered a brain injury. I laid a complaint with the Winz manager about this statement as it clearly was false."

From your comment above I take note that you apparently had the "honour" to be "dealt with" (or rather "dealt to" by) Ms Tanya Rissman, is that right?

I have heard about her before, and there is stuff mentioned on her in this post and comment thread:

http://accforum.org/...__1#entry171684


See the bottom of comment # 2!!!


I presume you may already have come across that info, and yes, perhaps put her name in the search box at the top of the ACC Forum page, and do an on site search, and her name may spring up somewhere else!

Someone I know had contact with someone in your area down there, and the person in Southland (having to apply for a WINZ benefit due to health and disability issues) also was at first getting the "fob off" treatment, and they tried to "shaft" him. He even learned they had not even used "designated doctors" down in the bottom of the South Island for over a year. They just started using them again recently, because some clients were only directly assessed by Rissman and other internal "advisors", who do often lack true medical qualifications. They got short changed, and WINZ did not properly follow their own processes. Once a complaint was made by that client's lawyer, they suddenly started using "designated doctors" again. But as we know, some of these "designated doctors" themselves are totally biased, and in the pocket of Dr David Bratt, the Principal Health Advisor, who oversees all their regional advisors.

Tanya Rissman is supposed to be a Regional Disability Advisor, and at least until recently also their Acting Regional Health Advisor, but her qualifications are a potpourri of counseling, social work, teaching kids with learning disabilities and the likes, and she proudly states she has worked "with" psychologists. That though does not make herself one, does it? Most RDAs and RHAs are lowly qualified health and rehabilitation professionals, if that, and many are just nurses, some not even registered. They then make recommendations, which in some cases challenge doctors and specialists.

In reality, WINZ and MSD are a worse, more dangerous minefield, because there you often do not know who you are dealing with, while with ACC, most may be rather predictable "experts".

0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users