I’m proud to live in a country that has a welfare system that provides for the less fortunate among us. I’ve met some genuine and wonderful people who suffer from debilitating injuries or illness. Some are on sickness or invalids benefits, others on ACC. I’ve met others who have temporarily found themselves on hard-times and needed a bit of a hand-up to get back on their feet. The unemployment benefit and other allowances available through Work and Income have helped them out.
I think it’s great that collectively we make sure that our fellow citizens get a fair go in life. I think it’s great that we look out for the more vulnerable among us. And that’s all the more reason why I get really hacked off with the small minority who abuse the system.
There is a story on Stuff today of a woman who, after being turned down for a benefit, paid for a huge billboard in Auckland to slag off Work and Income. She took exception to Work and Income claiming she had other means to support herself - and then proved them right by splashing out on the billboard. I mean, seriously!
The small number of people who abuse the welfare system in this country undermine it. Those who genuinely need help get tarred with the same brush and I think that stinks. I’m also worried that the National government will use cases like this to launch a new assault on our welfare system. In the end it won’t be the bludgers that get done over, it will be those in genuine need.
Yeah, I had to laugh. Not sure what kind of sympathy she expected tbh.
But come on, I don’t think ANYONE would use her as an example of why the welfare system should be overhauled!
@Nathan. Agreed, I would be interested to know what Bennett has to say about it :0
It is not about building a logical condemnation of the welfare state, but destroying it by a thousand half remembered baseless slanders. It is kick in the guts not a blow to the head.
Yep it sounds like something National would do to those poor beneficaries.
A tough one if you look at it with an open mind.
She doesn’t have cashflow yet has assets that may or may not turn a cashflow when the mortgages have been repaid.
So what you argue then is that she should be forced to sell some of her assets to turn a cashflow?
I say the same for the couple with 2 children and their own home on a ridiculously large mortgage who turn up for welfare assistance through welfare for families…
If this woman should have to sell her assets then so should the family with a mortgage they cannot afford as well.
They’d pay their mortgage off in the end.
the difference being that most people with more than one property WOULD look at liquidating to live on. She has freehold ownership of at least one property, but has CHOSEN to invest further equity in properties which aren’t paying for themselves. She doesn’t see why she should have to sell her surplus properties to support herself, but I’m not sure others will see it this way.
Here’s another thing. Who has the K to be buying billboard space if they’re so skint they need welfare assistance????
How nice that all of YOU agree that my money should be taken from me and given to causes YOU support. Never mind that fact that you, the government nor even the entirety of the remainder of humanity has the right to violate my rights in that way. The welfare system is based upon theft, pure and simple; I can not opt out therefore it is immoral.
@ N, athan – I meant the couple Cactus was talking about. I agree with you about the bill board broad.
There are different ways to make society better. We force people to have car insurance and accident coverage, and those models are great.
A couple of other areas need help. There needs to be mandatory insurance (like SSDI in the US) for disability, including disability from illness. The benefit should not be needs-based and should cover everyone, just like ACC does. ACC does not cover illnesses, and many disabilities are the result of illness, not accidents.
SSDI provides a benefit both for the disabled person and for their children, recognising that they are also affected by the beneficiary not being able to work. By law, those extra funds must be spent on the children or saved for them.
I am especially concerned about disabilities, and the ODI page (www.odi.govt.nz) seems more concerned with creating reports than providing services. When a disabled person goes there, there need to be *services* for them. Let’s take the topic of employment. That is a difficult area for the disabled, since many employers are still running on 20th Century time when it comes to telework.
Many disabled people take matters into their own hands and start their own businesses after having trouble finding suitable jobs. There are few resources ($) to help such people, who are entrepreneurs, really. Most resources are targeted at supports, not direct assistance with the costs of the business (non-disability-related).
And shouldn’t this page have grants devoted to assisting disabled people start businesses?:
http://www.business.govt.nz/Finances-and-cash-flow/Grants-and-other-financial-assistance.aspx
Look at all the government money sloshing around in these funds. How many disabled entrepreneurs are they funding, I do wonder.
http://www.nzte.govt.nz/find-funding-assistance/pages/international-growth-fund.aspx
It is important to support groups who are having difficulty. For instance, there are funds to help Maori, who in 2009 had an unemployment rate of 10%, start businesses.
Unemployment rates for the disabled are much higher than the non-disabled.
“In developing countries, 80% to 90% of persons with disabilities of working age are unemployed, whereas in industrialized countries the figure is between 50% and 70%.”
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=255
70%?!
The new international treaty is a huge step forward, but it seems Mongolia has ratified the protocol, while NZ has not, despite NZ’s leadership at the UN on the issue.
http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/maps/enablemap.jpg
The Protocol allows individuals to complain about states violating the treaty.
“A 2004 United States survey found that only 35 per cent of working-age persons with disabilities are in fact working, compared to 78 per cent of those without disabilities. Two-thirds of the unemployed respondents with disabilities said they would like to work but could not find jobs.”
*Two thirds* want to work. NZ should become a leader in this area and help the disabled find jobs (telework) and support them financially when they start new businesses. This should not be means-tested, either.
The US federal government has a disabilities page, http://www.disability.gov, but again, there is precious little direct financial help to start a business. Digging around in there, one can find a loan guarantee programme for a $5,000 loan. That amount doesn’t go very far, and it is a loan, not a grant.
What about the issue of means-testing for benefits. The invalid’s and sickness benefits are low in amount, and really are equivalent to the US means-tested SSI programme. We need an SSDI-style mandatory insurance programme which pays out when one becomes disabled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Security_Income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSDI
presuming Stuart Hawkins is serious (hard to tell really) he could go to Somalia – no govt there. That’s why the US saying is that taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society.
Nathan
“She doesn’t see why she should have to sell her surplus properties to support herself, but I’m not sure others will see it this way”.
Playing devil’s advocate (as I think this woman is a greedy stupid b****), beneficiaries CHOOSE to have Sky TV, smoke cigarettes and have other luxuries in life. Are you now suggesting telling them what they can and can’t spend their money on?
It is a slippery slope you get on as a pinko advocating telling beneficiaries how to spend their money when so many of your voters are on benefits.
The only problem with our welfare system is that it is not time limited or conditional . No one objects to people being given a hand up when times get tough for them or if they have made a large error in life BUT dole bludgers as in the recent Chch case for 20 plus years and Single mums with THREE kids !!!
Or the plonker who thinks he is entitled to a cell phone , new shoes and Fairisle cardy on the welfare!!!
Come on , there has to be some responsibility for self
Cactus, You can’t limit their expenses as they can buy what they like but you can asset test. I mean if you own 3 houses you shouldn’t get a benefit or you should only get a benefit until you can sell 1 of the houses. It’s common sense. But then again, common sense is not so common…..
Cactus Kate: Question of scale, innit? I have a mortgage (moderate; I have avoided scaling up to a flash palace I can’t afford, even though my recent earnings profile would have allowed that) and two kids, so resemble your example. I have been struggling to get enough contract/permanent work since being made redundant months ago. I do have some modest savings as I have not spent all of my aforementioned earnings on consumer frippery, but they aren’t vast and won’t support me indefinitely. There appears to be little call in today’s market for my skills, so I need to adapt. Easily said.
I have contacted WINZ; not for money, but for help in finding me different work, or possibly training to make me more hireable. (I’m open to doing anything, pretty much, that doesn’t involve heavy lifting). They basically aren’t interested until I have no income (now the case as my wife’s contract has also ended). Their approach seems to be “are you eligible for a UB?”. I’d rather they asked “what can we do to get you into work asap?”
Now, I could spend my cash reserves making the house sale-ready, sell up and live on the equity (much reduced in the current market, natch), until things pick up, assuming they will before 2020. But that leaves me totally dependent on a fickle job market (50 ain’t too far away), and increasingly, on the state as time goes by. I would be unlikely to get back into home ownership, short of winning the lotto. And I had better hope state super remains unmolested.
As you say, it’s a tough one. I can genuinely see the argument that says, tough luck, sell your assets, retrain, find employment, continue – but also that this does not necessarily result in the greatest social good.
WINZ does need fixing – not in the way Rodders and Rog probably fantasise about, but so as to eliminate the structural incentives that pull people of modest means towards welfare dependency, rather than facilitating their return to full and productive employment. This somewhat argues against forcing people to liquidate assets – however unpalatable that might be to the Stuart Hawkinses of NZ.
Rainman
My point exactly.
As for “asset testing” noExit, well if the “asset” is currently in negative equity or illiquid, then the argument is circular isn’t it as the person doesn’t actually have much of an asset.
@rainman – Yes, your house is your security and you shouldn’t ever be made to sell it.
Stuart Hawkins – You’re ridiculous. You expect to participate in a society that will provide you roads, rail, hospitals, police, prisons, energy and god knows what else, whilst not expecting you to contribute to that and that an elected body has the power to make decisions in the Nation’s interest?
I’ve siad it a million times to people like you – if you don’t like it, don’t live in New Zealand or any modern Westernized civilization – I reckon you have two choices – Montenegro if you can afford it, their coroporate tax rate is 12% and personal tax rate is 9%, or if you’re that rich try Monte Carlo, 33% corporate and 0% personal. But, I suspect that you’re not that rich, so try Zimbabwe, it’s lovely this time of year.
Welfare is not a programme, it’s a moral covenant between a people and their government and god forbid anyone like you should actually face the indignity of having to apply for it. I saw my parents pig headedly struggle through a market crash out of pride, stuff that. It’s there to make sure our people don’t fall through the cracks. 100 abuses a year is better than one person who has to suffer for lack of any other place to get support.
@Andrew I know a guy who is on a high income who has insurances and they take up a third of his wages BEFORE his mortgage comes out. Most people would be crippled if they had to rely on insurance. I don’t know anything about SSDI.
@ Kaine T – 100% agree with you buddy.
Well, I don’t think a national insurance system for disability would break the bank. It would be close to the same system as ACC, only it would cover all disabilities from whatever source. ACC is a good system; just tack it onto that.
Social Security in the States is paid for with a 15.3% tax, half of which is paid by the employer. That covers everything Social Security does, including the super-like retirement pension. The SSDI budget is a little over $100 billion. Compare this with the total 2010 federal budget of $3.55 trillion. SSDI is 2.8% of that amount.
The average “benefit” of this insurance is USD1,064 per month. ACC pays a much higher percentage of lost income. The base for ACC is 80%. This is very generous compared to SSDI.
The minimum ‘ invalids’ benefit in NZ is about the same as the average US disability payment. ie $272 pw gross for a single person. Plus the US one has to be minimum disability of one year.
So how is the US system more generous. An application takes 3-5 months to process as well.
@ghost
Regarding SSDI:
USD1064 per month at 0.71 is NZD345 per week. Add the extra 50% for any kids, and that’s NZD519 per week. That’s just the average. SSDI maxes out around USD2,000 a month or so (NZD2,816, or NZD4224 per month with any kids). Also different from NZ is the fact that if that’s your only income, you will likely pay no tax. The childrens’ portion is not taxed at all in any case.
The only thing that comes close to paying $50,000+ per year to a disabled person in NZ is ACC, and that doesn’t cover illnesses.
SSDI is *much* more generous than the invalid benefit, if you qualify.
And the reason it is more generous is because it is a mandatory insurance, similar to ACC.
The invalid benefit is equivalent to SSI, and both are lower than SSDI for the reason that it comes straight from general tax funds. An SSDI-equivalent programme is something NZ lacks.
This should be a key part of social justice efforts in NZ, especially by the Labour and Green parties.
Lyndon Johnson was instrumental in the Senate in the 1950s in getting SSDI passed. One might say that it was his first “Great Society” programme.
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/0302/0302ft5.html
Dorothy, of course I am serious are you?
You seem to equate not having a social welfare system to not having any form of government at all?
Let me keep it very simple for you, one can have a government without a social welfare system.
Kaine T I have responded to the relevant sections of your post by copying it here and adding my responses in
>Stuart Hawkins – You’re ridiculous. You expect to participate in a >society that will provide you roads, rail, hospitals, police, >prisons, energy and god knows what else, whilst not expecting you to >contribute to that and that an elected body has the power to make >decisions in the Nation’s interest?
These are by definition private goods, (with the exception of the police and possibly prisons) the government has no business having anything to do with them at all. As to police I would be more than willing to pay my share (or preferably make them self funding). There are hundreds of ways that I can point out as to how police can be handled and am willing to do so if you wish to make an issue of this one.
>I’ve siad it a million times to people like you – if you don’t like >it, don’t live in New Zealand or any modern Westernized civilization
I have the right to the non-initiation of force, I should not be forced and compelled simply by the accident of where I was born. I certainly should not have to leave my current location in order to have my rights recognised.
As an aside let us apply that rationale (the if you don’t like it here move somewhere else) to all the areas where people are being attacked and violated, the people of Darfur should simply leave and go elsewhere, the people of Gaza should give it up and the Jews simply should have buggered off out of Germany. Oh wait that is DISGUSTING!
>– I reckon you have two choices
Good for you!
“Do not tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind – force and minds are opposite; morality ends where a gun begins.”
Ayn Rand
>– Montenegro if you can afford it,
>their coroporate tax rate is 12% and personal tax rate is 9%, or if >you’re that rich try Monte Carlo, 33% corporate and 0% personal. >But, I suspect that you’re not that rich, so try Zimbabwe, it’s >lovely this time of year.
I shouldn’t have to move in order for my human rights to be upheld
>Welfare is not a programme, it’s a moral covenant between a people >and their government
I never agreed to it, so why should it bind me?
>and god forbid anyone like you should actually face the indignity >of having to apply for it.
Really? So I should have all of the costs, difficulties, and violations of the system and then exclude myself from ever being able to get any of that I have paid back?
My entire point is that if I were given the choice of being permanently excluded from it’s help and was hence not forced to pay I would. Good work for missing the boat entirely though.
>I saw my parents pig headedly struggle through a market crash out of >pride, stuff that.
Yeah and? Did I cause that problem? No? Well then why should I be expected to pay for their misfortune? I do not expect anyone to pay for mine.
>It’s there to make sure our people don’t fall through the cracks.
What cracks? You mean to make sure they don’t have bad luck? Well that is what insurance is for and savings etc.
>100 abuses a year is better than one person who has to suffer for >lack of any other place to get support.
1000 people dying of blameless starvation is better than one person being harmed by another (even if I were one of the starving)
HA HA HA HA… Seriously? You really are ridiculous. Enjoy Somalia
Dear Chris Hipkins,
Can you read the following written by Rosemary McLeod
• 10 Dec 2009
• Waikato Times
Whose welfare gets first priority?
‘‘We thought it only natural for women to look after sick, old and disabled family members, as well as the very young, and have no independent life of their own as a result.’’
I guess it’s inevitable to think of welfare issues at Christmas, what with giving away things from my pathetic coffers being compulsory either way. So I’m thinking about people who are worse off: families with children who have disabilities so serious they’ll never be independent.
That’s not because I think the gravely disabled are lesser people, but because there will be no time in their parents’ lives when they are not actively concerned for them.
There will be only years of obligations, curtailing the freedom of both parents – if they choose to remain together, when the stress of such situations drives many apart.
People adjust, and they love their children, but they are adjusting to calamity.
I once viewed a house for sale in which a lone woman tended an adult son unable to do anything for himself but lie still, incapable of speech or meaningful communication.
She’d been doing this for so long that she probably didn’t realise how shocking and sad it would seem to strangers intruding on her privacy, and seeing her situation encapsulated for me just what’s really involved.
It’s a life of sacrifice, and I don’t think I’d be up to it.
Right now eight families in similar situations are waiting for a decision from the Human Rights Review Tribunal on whether family members should be paid for caring for disabled children at home.
They’ve been waiting since last September and they are getting old; three are in their 70s.
The final decision has to be complicated but I can see the parents’ point of view. They are assessed as needing a certain number of hours of care each week for the disabled person, which the state pays for – but not if family looks after them.
ACC is different: it pays family to look after people hurt in accidents, so this looks like an instance of the families of sick and disabled people being disadvantaged for doing pretty much the same thing.
The difference is, in belt-tightening times, that accident victims may get better, while very disabled people never can.
The Health Ministry argues that it’s customary for people to look after their family unpaid, an argument that’s a bit hard to sustain in an economy when both parents – even when they’re unburdened by calamity – increasingly have to work to maintain a bearable standard of living.
What the ministry calls a ‘‘social contract’’ is really based on our history of women at home running children and households while men went out to work, the almost invariable arrangement well into the last century.
We thought it only natural for women to look after sick, old and disabled family members, as well as the very young, and have no independent life of their own as a result.
But there’s no justice in that expectation, however handy it may be for bureaucracy to want to perpetuate it to save money.
There was the option, once, of giving a severely disabled person over to an institution that would take care of them, but that no longer applies.
Those places have closed as part of wider reforms that also spilled the mentally ill out into the community where, I suspect, anxious wives and mothers still bear the brunt of their care.
I don’t see how these parents can be denied the payments they’re asking for on the basis of a ‘‘social contract’’ when the welfare system has eroded such contracts in so many other ways.
Families once supported each other in adversity, also under a ‘‘social contract’’.
Unemployed family members were supported by those who were in work, and the old by their children – if they were lucky.
Now they get state handouts. Only minority cultures see the merit in retaining close family ties and avoiding welfare, but that will change.
The ministry is afraid of setting a precedent if these parents win the argument, but welfare on the scale we have has long been financially untenable: we might as well give everyone a guaranteed income whatever their circumstances and be done with it.
To argue that the least fortunate parents of all should be excluded, because if they succeed the system will flood with similar requests, seems pitilessly cold-hearted.
Besides, the flood is already drowning us.
Rosemary McLeod
I copied this in to a previous posting with regard to the concern being shown by the Labour Party, to the new members of The Human Rights Tribunal. I did not realize that this commentary had been written by you. I think it is more appropriate to install it in this section.
Myself and other parents involved in this case have not “abused the system”. Yet the Previous Government, Labour have directed that we should have to take this case to the Human Rights Tribunal. The Labour Government had spent thousands of dollars on Legal representatives to try and prove that we are bad parents, that we are greedy.
We love our children and want what is best for them. what is best and safe for my child is for her to live at home with her family. Have a look at the quality of care that is available in the mini institutions in our community, and you would come to the same conclusion.
“You are right when you say that In the end it won’t be the bludgers that get done over, it will be those in genuine need”
This was just as true when Labour was in power as it will be under the current National Government.
Peter Humphreys
Kaine T
Thanks you for admitting you can’t argue against my reasoning, it takes a big man to admit when they are wrong, it is just unfortunate that you won’t go that next step and change your ideas. Fact of the matter is I answered every one of your points (each answer crushing your objection completely) and you made no attempt to argue otherwise, all you did was make a derisive dismissal (including the statement that I should move to Somalia despite the fact that I gave an excellent argument of why I should not have to move in order for my rights to be recognised and a previous post pointing out why moving to Somalia will not get me what I want). All I really ask is for people like you to stop being greedy selfish and abusive, niot much to ask is it?
Now I know you’re not serious because none of that was excellent or rational reasoning. Amusing though sociopathic.
Cactus Kate.
Nope, I don’t think we should regulate what they spend THEIR money on. I do think there needs to be some form of control on what they spend TAXPAYERS money on though!
After all, if it’s a “welfare” system, why should it be limited to just doling out money? Should we not also ensure that these $ are best spent in whatever way they need to be to get the beneficiary back into the workforce?
Sounds too complicated, everyone’s needs are different and it would be a pain to police.
@Andrew Straw – I agree that there is an unfair difference between what someone who is on ACC gets paid and what someone who is on an invalids or sickness benefit gets paid, particularly in cases where the illness/disability is similar. I understand that in part it stems from the fact that the ACC scheme was only ever half-implemented and was intended to cover sickness and invalids benefits in due course. I hope to read the full report that recommended the ACC system, but haven’t yet had the chance to do so, but others may have more knowledge?
that lady is in the same situation as the man that phil campaigned to get welfare for last year
@Rainman – I agree that Work and Income should be geared more towards keeping people in jobs in the first place, but that’s a tough nut to crack. Look at the very limited result the 9 day fortnight produced (although I still think if they were going to do that they should have tied it to training/education). I also think we should look carefully at how we could incentivise tertiary education for those newly unemployed. As it stands someone newly unemployed is probably better off going on the unemployment benefit than enroling for tertiary study, even if they are eligible for both a loan and a student allowance. We should look closely at that.
@Cactus – Work and Income do actually monitor what some people on benefits spend their money on. If someone goes to WI looking for extra support, they often have to sit down and go through their budget/spending line by line.
@Peter Humphreys – thanks, I hadn’t seen that one, but I do agree that the role of parents caring for someone with a long-term illness/disability needs to be looked at. Grandparents raising children is another area. Likewise people caring for someone with a mental illness.
The govt should just make it easier to retain.
Since the TIA cuts, which would have allowed me to study full time; I have to study part time. This will still cost me around $1700.
Since I’m only studying part time to access the $1000 course related costs (since its usually only for people studying full time) I have to send the form to the Uni after being accepted more or less stating “well I know that you have offered me a place but I can’t accept unless you sign this”
I feel this puts my placement in jeopardy.
They then have to send it back, so that I then have to pay a babysitter and make an appointment with a budget adviser or WINZ to state the obvious, That I cannot go full time due to the fact that 100 childcare a week if I was going to go full time is out of my reach, and that if I don’t get granted the $1000 course related costs then I will have to find money that isn’t there for text books.
In monetary terms, childcare would cost $100 a week over and above the childcare subsidy if I was to undertake full time study. My budget as a solo parent on the DPB does not allow this expense. The Training Incentive Allowance would have covered this but unfortunately was cut last year for tertiary students. A letter from a budget adviser is included with this application confirming that my budget cannot stretch any further, and certainly not to cover an extra $100. Not being granted the $1000 course related costs component of the student loan would cause financial hardship for myself and my children. I would have to stretch a budget that only allows for necessities, to cover text books, childcare for one to two days a week and any other study costs that there may occur.
This is what I have written on the form.
After all this there is no guaranty that I’ll get it anyway. What’s the big deal? The $1000 is part of the student loan that you have to pay back anyway.
Can’t something be done so that we are just automatically given it if we used to qualify for TIA? since all other help has been taken away?
Then I have to prove how much childcare would be, how much I would have to pay, get all those forms together and send them in too.
I find it demoralising and degrading to have to tell so many different people my financial position just to be able to study. Especially since so many people have a real thing against solo parents at the moment and the stigma against us is so rife in NZ society.
Maybe I should have waited another year or so until my children qualify for the 20hrs free care, but then I want to be working when my youngest starts school. Trying to access funds that are needed is not easy.
Sorry about the long post above. Just fustrated and angry about how its so hard to get anywhere and how embarrassing this whole process has been. Its also stressful as I now have to wait and see if I can study, even though I have been give a direct entry to the program I want to study in.
Chris – 12.55 – watch this space.
Chris, what a relief it is to get a reply from a politician. I had sent a copy of this article to nearly every Member of Parliament. 95% did not answer. The ones that did hid behind the “can’t comment because it is before the tribunal”. Thank you for your opinion and thank you for replying.
Regards Peter Humphreys
Good luck Peter.
That is a hard job, I hope you and people like you in your position are successful.
@ A Mother – goodluck to you.
@ : – ) LOL
I tried that. Great face / name though. 
To A Mother,
Best wishes to you in your quest to improve the situation for you and your family. Thank you for your empathy.
Regards Peter
Kaine T
>Now I know you’re not serious because none of that was excellent or >rational reasoning. Amusing though sociopathic.
Really? Then you should have no to trouble showing why I was wrong, funny that you don’t even attempt to do so.
Beyond the wilds of darkest Epsom, most decline to engage with the adolescent mind of the typical Randian. Fitful laughter or rueful head-nodding are common responses to those who trot out that twaddle as if it’s some sort of immutable natural law.
I’ve been declined for limited part time status so I don’t get the $1000 loan for course related costs It doesn’t meet Studylink’s exceptional circumstance, regardless if I went full time I would only have less than 30 for food for the 3 of us.
I will have to apply for every scholarship that I can. The problem with this is I don’t qualify for many. I’m not young enough but there is a lot are for Maori or Pacific Islanders.
Do you think that I can claim I’m a Pacific Islander as I was born on an island in the pacific? (Is the north island not in the pacific?)
Don’t get me wrong, it is good that they have their own scholarships but there really isn’t many that I can apply for.
IF ANYONE KNOWS OF ANY I CAN APPLY FOR PLEASE LET ME KNOW URGENTLY!!!!!
Truly gutted. Don’t know what to do next.
I’m so sorry! I think they should just allow anyone to have $1000 course costs if they’re studying. I mean it has to be paid back anyway so they should just let the student decide if he / she needs it.
I suggest you go into your uni / poly’s main office and ask who you can speak to about scholarships.
Goodluck.
Thanks Spud.
Main office in Palmy, I’m in wellington. Studying Extramural.
Will look on their Massey’s website.
Still don’t think it should be this hard
@A Mother – penny has just dropped for me as to the fact that you are the same person with whom I have been having email conversation. Can I suggest you email Carmel :- carmel.sepuloni@parliament.govt.nz
Yes. I’m one in the same.
Okay thanks Trevor I will email her.
Another Link to our case.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/mental-health/news/article.cfm?c_id=699&objectid=10536859&pnum=5
Resounding victory for caregiver parents
Friday, 8 January 2010, 5:03 pm
Press Release: Human Rights Commission http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1001/S00012.htm
@Peter Humphreys Yay!