Editorial - October 2, 2012

The perception, in some quarters at least, is that the average beneficiary is a shiftless individual whose only expenditure of energy is devoted to getting the most possible out of an easily fooled, over-generous government department. However accurate that might or might not be, there seems little doubt that it does not apply to Sam Kuha. The Kaikohe man who is now into the third week of a hunger strike does not fit the stereotype, and it is unfortunate that WINZ remains adamant that the rules are fair in every circumstance and must not be broken.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said last week that she was always willing to look at ways of improving WINZ policies, but thought the rules governing special needs grants was "about right". She also pointed out that budgeting groups had received extra funding - up from $4.3 million in 2008 to $13 million this year - to enable them to meet an expected increase in demand from beneficiaries who cannot make ends meet.

A ministry spokesman claimed last week that emergency budgeting advice was available for those who couldn't wait the standard three weeks for assistance, although it wasn't clear whether that had been offered to Mr Kuha. It might not have made much difference if it was.

Sam Kuha has made it clear from the outset that this goes beyond his ability to survive on a weekly grocery budget of $18. He says he won't be ending his hunger strike until WINZ changes its special needs grant policy, and insists that he isn't thinking of himself as much as he is of families who are in similar straits. Throwing a few extra dollars at him isn't going to work, and isn't going to resolve the problem WINZ has. And it is a problem, whether or not anyone within WINZ, from Paula Bennett down, recognises that.

At some point something has to give. Either Mr Kuha will back down, which seems unlikely, or he will die, which, if he persists, is inevitable. Or WINZ will re-examine its policy and make the changes he's asking for. It is not encouraging that as of late last week no one from WINZ had made personal contact with Mr Kuha, the attitude apparently being that these are the rules, end of story. For a government department that, in all fairness, does a very difficult job governed by extraordinarily complex (and inflexible) rules, this has all the hallmarks of a PR disaster.

The attitude within WINZ might well be that making a concession to Mr Kuha will open the floodgates, but the immediate concern must be to end his hunger strike. If that means genuinely examining a rule which, in this case at least seems ridiculous, then so be it.

The problem for WINZ, and to Mr Kuha's great credit, is that it is not dealing with a greedy individual who is the author of his own misfortune. This man does not have a history of bludging off the state. He worked as a bushman and owned a business before the accident that cost him one leg and the use of one arm. (Why he is not entitled to ongoing support from ACC is not clear).

He has $18 a week to feed (and clothe and transport) himself because he puts the money he needs to meet other obligations - mortgage, rates, power among them - aside each week. Far from being a man who needs someone to tell him how to budget his income, that would seem to make him an exemplary beneficiary. He should be applauded for the way he addresses his responsibilities, not patronised by people who cannot see past the book of rules and who will never experience the pressure he faces to survive on a daily basis.

There was a time when this impasse would have been resolved long ago. WINZ in Kaitaia once employed a woman (who can't be named, because she would hunt the writer down and exact painful revenge) who knew the rules, but also recognised genuine need when she saw it. She would routinely dive into her own purse to help people, generally with very modest sums, who faced an immediate crisis and for some reason or other could not be assisted officially. If memory serves those people unfailingly paid her back. These were genuine people in genuine need, for whom every other door was closed.

Those days have obviously gone, although it would be interesting to know (but pointless to ask) if anyone at WINZ in Kaikohe felt the urge to slip Mr Kuha the $40 he was asking for when he was denied the special needs grant he was seeking. He probably wouldn't have accepted it though. What we have here, and what WINZ doesn't seem to appreciate, is a proud man who is sticking to a point of principle. The odds of him conceding defeat do not seem good. If someone's going to shift it will have to be, and should be, WINZ.

The ice beneath the department's feet does not seem to be especially thick. Mr Kuha says, and no one has contradicted him, that he's had budgeting advice before. Neither his income nor his cost of living had changed, so he saw little point in repeating the exercise. Makes sense so far.

Even if he hadn't played the game before, it would seem unlikely that there is much room for a budget adviser to improve Mr Kuha's lot by juggling a weekly income of $244, given that he puts money aside each week to ensure he will always be able to pay his mortgage, rates and power. The alternative is to find some way of making $18 a week go much further than Mr Kuha can get out of it.

He has said, and is believed, that he does not drink alcohol, smoke or use drugs. He shows every sign of living a very frugal life. And given that the request that led to this appalling stand-off was for a $40 food grant, his expectations of the taxpayer do not seem excessive.

The mistake made by WINZ would seem to be slavish adherence to the rule book, exacerbated by its refusal to accept that Mr Kuha's situation might warrant a different approach. It would be fair to believe that many beneficiaries who can't make ends meet could do with some budgeting advice, and for reasons including that taxpayer money is not in limitless supply it would be wrong for the ministry to respond to every sob story with wads of extra cash. But something is wrong if WINZ, and its Minister for that matter, can't see that Mr Kuha doesn't fall into the category of those who can't feed their kids because Steinlager hasn't been on special this week.

No one in their right mind would envy WINZ case managers their job, but the rules have to be administered with some humanity. Someone within WINZ should also be asking themselves how far they are prepared to go with this. Would they really be prepared to see Mr Kuha die for his cause? If it's a bluff it's a beauty.

At the end of the day it's WINZ' job to be fair in its administration of a welfare system that enables those who need assistance to live in a degree of dignity. Sam Kuha seems to have been deprived of that, for some time. Waving the rule book doesn't cut it. WINZ must do better than this, and quickly.