[awryly]

Quote

Ministry of Social Development chief executive Peter Hughes said it did not collate figures on what courses people were sent on, how much it cost or what the employment outcomes for those people were.

"Due to the range of factors influencing an individual's employment, the ministry cannot directly link specific types of training programmes to an employment outcome," he said

This is a mind-boggling statement from Hughes. In fact it's hard to believe he said it. The ministry doesn't analyse the costs and results of training provision? If that's true, it's an absurd dereliction of accountability. Or is the ministry now simply using expensive training programmes as an easy worktest measure without hope or expectation of any employment outcome?

In my day, this was absolutely not true. Measures of sorts were in place to evaluate the effectiveness of training programes at both the local and national level. Many training providers were paid and/or re-contracted on the basis of their ability to generate employment outcomes.

The measurement system was a fertile area for staff and manager rorts. The brownie point was scored when a client found a job within x, y or z weeks after training. This was called an assisted self-placement ASP). Audits of training ASPs, virtually non-existant in WINZ but common in its predecessor, the NZ Employment Service, invariably showed perverse use - sometimes innocent but often deliberate - of this measure. So much so, that few outcomes could be reliably attributed to training. NZES audits commonly disqualified 75-80% of claimed outcomes.

Perhaps this is what Hughes means - that:

"training programmes are so useless at producing employment outcomes, we''ll scrap any notion of trying to measure their value in employment terms. Besides, we don't want their uselessness accurately measured and reported in the Christchurch Press, do we"?

" and we've always got the mantra to fall back on that reading, writing and arithmetric will come in handy one day over the rainbow".

Seems to me that training is now just a form of worktest coercion.

[Alan Thomas]

I can only think of one possible reason why Peter Hughes has made is mind-boggling acknowledgement that they have no idea how they are spending their money. There must be something to hide and it is very important to have a plausible deniability.

To my mind there was no possibility that public funds could be spent willy-nilly without accountability or a cost versus benefit analysis taking place so as to avoid funding incompetence or fraudulent activities. I do not believe that spending could occur when there is absolutely no attempt to ensure that that spending was beneficial to the taxpayer. I will be living in an age where there is no accountability. I think not. I have the impression that we are watching a crime continuing to take place or part of the evidence that a crime has already taken place.

[boho refugee]

LOL awryly

I thought you may find that article interesting

However I would suggest that CMs currently threatening benefit cuts in the guise of training instructions as "a form of worktest coercion" while at the same time likely spending taxpayer money and enhancing their KPIs with no accountability - can also be used to disguise various other major issues etc

IMHO some of these CMs are becoming so powerful that they can simply ignore contemporary medical certification as well

I also still am shocked that a young kiwi who transitions from Child Benefit to Sickness Benefit [whilst in FT study] can apparently incur a TWO week penalty or sanction or standown or whatever trendy term they like to use when instructing their potential new claimant to submit to WINZ programmes etc Basically looks like in this 4 week period I am reviewing - there would be an entitlement of 7 days Child Benefit and then if the plan sanction potential is not enacted perhaps another 7 days SB Hardship benefit etc What about the other 2 weeks I wonder and who feeds the youngster then etc

Then there are various other issues I am watching such as the near $10,000 study debt incurred while trying to cope on Child Benefit and what will happen there [ignoring the fact that student allowances were denied & they are now eligible for the SB] as yep its already a major headache looming with this CM imho

Basically seems this CM can decide many things ie as soon as they are given a medical certificate where circumstances mean the claimant becomes eligible for social security entitlements etc Now wondering what spin that Peter Hughes can place on his experienced staff members deciding they can risk youth evictions and destitution & NCEA qualification examination absences ie all in favour of their current CM management styles etc

[awryly]

I wonder if National will now, having won an election, do what Judith Collins said it would do just before the 2005 election it lost?

To wit:

Quote

15 September 2005
The Christchurch Press published the following (see here):

“National welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins last night called for an external inquiry into the allegations [of Work and Income performance scams], saying "another internal inquiry from WINZ to investigate WINZ" was not needed.

”The allegations should be referred to the police or the Serious Fraud Office, she said.

"If National leads the government after Saturday, I can promise the first thing on my agenda will be to get to the bottom of this," Collins said.”

Let's hope so.....

and so......

and so.....

[awryly]

Quote

I wonder if National will now, having won an election, do what Judith Collins said it would do just before the 2005 election it lost?

To wit:

Quote

15 September 2005
The Christchurch Press published the following (see here):

“National welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins last night called for an external inquiry into the allegations [of Work and Income performance scams], saying "another internal inquiry from WINZ to investigate WINZ" was not needed.

”The allegations should be referred to the police or the Serious Fraud Office, she said.

"If National leads the government after Saturday, I can promise the first thing on my agenda will be to get to the bottom of this," Collins said.”

Let's hope so.....

and so......

and so.....

The next day, on the eve of the election, she said this:

Quote

“National Party welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins said feedback yesterday [in private emails from current WINZ staff] had made her even more convinced an external inquiry into the allegations was necessary.”

Far be it from me to hold the National Government to its promises.

[MINI]

1. Didnt Judith Collins lose her seat??

2. Hasnt National got a new leader since then??

3. So therefore what substance does what she said three years ago have today??

My opinion: None!!

If you want something done about the problems, why not bombard the newbie govt and see if they have any legs, or we get the same old, same old, as before.

[doppelganger]

I agree with Mini but would approach you mate Judith and ask if she was a fraudster in claiming public if she would get into government and do something and when she was in there did nothing.

This will make the present government look very closely at what was said and what they are doing.

[awryly]

MINI, on Dec 2 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

1. Didnt Judith Collins lose her seat??

2. Hasnt National got a new leader since then??

3. So therefore what substance does what she said three years ago have today??

My opinion: None!!

If you want something done about the problems, why not bombard the newbie govt and see if they have any legs, or we get the same old, same old, as before.

1. No

2.The same leader I met with in May 2006 to talk about WINZ/MSD (John Key)

3. Indeed. And what substance did it have then?

[MINI]

Awrly

What did the leader you met with in 2006 have to do with Judith Collins and what she said back in 2005??

Are we hearing just half the story??

Did John keys offer some bait in 2006??

Would be interesting to know what he was going to do about the same problems.

You could hold them/him to any promises now!!

How cool is that!! Got the bull by the horns.

[awryly]

MINI, on Dec 2 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Awrly

What did the leader you met with in 2006 have to do with Judith Collins and what she said back in 2005??

Are we hearing just half the story??

Did John keys offer some bait in 2006??

Would be interesting to know what he was going to do about the same problems.

You could hold them/him to any promises now!!

How cool is that!! Got the bull by the horns.

What bull is that?

[awryly]

awryly, on Dec 2 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

What bull is that?

In somewhat more serious vein, Key was running damage control for Collins.

She opened her mouth and spoke some truths that Key did not want heard.

He met with me to defuse an awkward situation.

Which is as awkward now as it was then.

We have an interesting prime minister.

[awryly]

awryly, on Dec 2 2008, 05:16 PM, said:

In somewhat more serious vein, Key was running damage control for Collins.

She opened her mouth and spoke some truths that Key did not want heard.

He met with me to defuse an awkward situation.

Which is as awkward now as it was then.

We have an interesting prime minister.

Collins, meanwhile, is doing Corrections.

I imagine that means something.

Prisoners like pink, perhaps?

[awryly]

awryly, on Dec 2 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

Collins, meanwhile, is doing Corrections.

I imagine that means something.

Prisoners like pink, perhaps?

Bottom line is, of course, that WINZ/MSD is corrupt.

And that Key and Collins were advised of that by a WINZ/MSD internal auditor.

Who provided them with evidence.

Other WINZ staff also provided them with evidence.

They chose to ignore it.

So, we now have a prime minister who condones fraud.

[Alan Thomas]

awryly have you formed an opinion or developed any theory as to why state servants invariably fail to perform adequately and then engage in jiggery-pokery to cover up the reality of what they have been doing with our money. Obviously outright theft is quite rare but what about the day-to-day theft of the wages by not actually doing their jobs ranging from the front-line people all the way to the top. Because it does not seem to be very orchestrated like the mafia or any other business is it something that spontaneously happens in such organisations? I am looking to discover the mechanics as to what goes wrong and why. I have considered Milton Friedman is thoughts on the matter in comparison with Lenin.

[awryly]

Alan Thomas, on Dec 3 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

awryly have you formed an opinion or developed any theory as to why state servants invariably fail to perform adequately and then engage in jiggery-pokery to cover up the reality of what they have been doing with our money. Obviously outright theft is quite rare but what about the day-to-day theft of the wages by not actually doing their jobs ranging from the front-line people all the way to the top. Because it does not seem to be very orchestrated like the mafia or any other business is it something that spontaneously happens in such organisations? I am looking to discover the mechanics as to what goes wrong and why. I have considered Milton Friedman is thoughts on the matter in comparison with Lenin.

Their masters need to look good.

No more complicated than that.

[MINI]

Now we are talking.

Look at the top, you will find it is all very well orchestrated like the mafia.

It is so baffling that sometimes even they have no idea how wide the word stretches. Not very far.

Remember a document put up online by Huggy, which named a person down south. It was a letter to the ombudsman from an ACC employee who is quite high up on the rungs of power, due to his anylitical expertise. It was about reimbursements from ACC back to WINZ.

Well, that is two of the parties involved. It stretches further than that, but not one of WINZ or ACC staff all the way down to Technical Officer level, knew a thing about it. let alone the poor old claimant.

Now when these senior people get on the stand and try to make sence of all the rubbarb to the Judge. They find it a little difficult to eplain why their boss has got an opposite idea how to all this works than down on the next rung of the ladder.

Indeedy, now we are talking, look at the top and see if they ever told the parlimentarians...................I don't think so!!!!

Even if they did, I wonder what version was given??

Now these are the type of people that steal our rights from us!!! This I do know.

[awryly]

We get inured to bureaucratic fraud as Americans get inured to economic bailouts.

A necessary step in evolutionary progress.

Americans have the better excuse.

[awryly]

Quote

agencies' response to OIA requests
12:07PM Tuesday Dec 02, 2008

Parts of the public service have come under fire from the Office of the Ombudsmen for using intentional delaying tactics when responding to Official Information Act (OIA) requests.

In the office's annual report to Parliament, Chief Ombudsmen Beverley Wakem said the practice was unacceptable and subverted the purpose of the legislation.

Ms Wakem said the office had observed "an increasing tendency by a few government departments and ministerial offices to ignore the provisions of the OIA over the timing of responses to requesters".

"While in some cases this was clearly a misunderstanding of their obligations, there is also a regrettable tendency to game the system and delay responses until the complainants' interest in the matter had passed," she said.

Now one of the offenders wouldn't be MSD by any chance?

An OIA request made by a member of this forum in July 2007 did not get a "full" response until September 2008. More of the details of the request later.

My own experience of MSD was that it took up to 2 1/2 years to get responses.

Here is what the Ombudsman had to say about MSD on another but related matter in his report to Parliament of 2004:

Quote

Ministry of Social Development

An issue which arose during the course` of this year highlights the importance of ensuring that sufficient care is taken to identify and assess all of the information relevant to an official information request for the purposes of determining whether there are grounds to refuse that request, or withhold the information at issue, under the OIA.

Following the conclusion of an official information investigation earlier in the year, it subsequently became apparent that the Ministry of Social Development had failed to identify all of the information relevant to the official information request at issue. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman re-opened his investigation.

The Ministry conceded that there was further information relevant to the official information request which had not been considered for release at the time of the request. It was explained that officials had made incorrect assumptions in determining what information fell within the scope of the request and had incorrectly believed that the further information at issue was not covered by the request.

The Ministry released all of the further information to the requester and apologised to the requester for the way in which his request had been managed initially. The Ministry also reviewed its procedures and processes for responding to OIA requests and changed those procedures significantly with a view to ensuring that the same errors in processing requests do not occur in the future.

They really are very naughty.

[awryly]

Don't bother watching the Parliament channel.

I have yet to see or hear such unmitigated drivel from a governing party and its cohorts.

A shameful waste of bandwith.

Even Fox News is more rewarding....just, Fox at least delivers mitigated drivel.

[awryly]

I see Key, in last night's Address in Reply debate, is promising to keep the Serious Fraud Office.

That could be helpful to one of his colleagues:

Quote

“National welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins last night called for an external inquiry into the allegations [of Work and Income performance scams], saying "another internal inquiry from WINZ to investigate WINZ" was not needed.

”The allegations should be referred to the police or the Serious Fraud Office, she said.