That was quick
February 26th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarThe Dom Post reports:
A unemployed man trying to stop Manners Mall from becoming a bus-only road says his dole has been cut after he admitted he had no intention of getting a job.
Activist Benjamin Easton, 49, also revealed he had not had a job interview since he went on the dole nearly three years ago.
He met Work and Income for a work test yesterday after telling The Dominion Post he was on the benefit deliberately so he could bring the “people’s challenge to the courts” and that he was “perfectly capable of earning”.
Mr Easton said last night he had received a letter from Work and Income telling him he did not meet eligibility criteria and his benefit had been stopped as of yesterday.
One hopes this is an isolated case, but who knows. The vast majority of people on the dole are looking for work, and would much rather be working. However what we don’t know if how big is that minority who see it as a lifestyle.
Mr Easton said losing the dole would force him to move out of his $135-a-week Wellington City Council flat. “If they knock me off [the benefit] I will go back to living on the street.”
No he is not being forced to live on the street. He is choosing to, because he has chosen not to make himself available for work.
The activist has taken cases on a range of issues including an Environment Court appeal against the council’s $11.1 million Manners Mall bus route project.
“If I don’t do this then there isn’t anybody else to do it. I am the only person who knows what it is I am talking about.”
Now that is quite possible!
February 26th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I’ve met this dude. And seriously? I don’t think that even he know’s what he’s on about half the time!
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Why was he paid for three years without any intervention by WINZ?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Well done WINZ, now, move onto Philip Ure.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I hope he is the only bludger ……… mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I just thought about it and I would suggest there are thousands of his ilk sponging off NZ’s taxpayers (for our Labour and Green friends, I mean PAYE earners on over $70 with no kids and our private companies).
Vote:Winz needs to hunt his sort down. It was helpful of the tosser to pop his head and say pick me.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
You only need to read his contributions to the thread about him yesterday to understand that this is a bloke with a very deluded sense of his own importance. Perhaps he should be a Labour or Green MP
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
@ big bruv – I daresay Phil’s sphincter tightens each time the phone rings now, or each time a government-issue car drives down his street.
They’re coming Phil; it’s just a question of when ….
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Excellent. Now we just wait for all the other dole bludgers in NZ to do a newspaper interview and admit that they could work but don’t want to. Problem solved. And the best thing, the government won’t need to do a thing. Which is good, because they’re quite skilled at that.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Why are WINZ not chasing the 3 years of dole money we have obviously overpaid the prick? He clearly states that he has not had an interview or the intent to work in this period, which surely must be a criteria of collecting the dole. Thus, this equals benefit fraud.
Union flunkies are always demanding back dated pay settlements, for perceived injustices, surely the same logic must apply in reverse in this case.
If he doesn’t have the coin, take all his possessions, including his blankets that he will need whilst sleeping under a bridge, and list them on trademe. Then follow up with his immediate family for the overpaid benefits… As the left footed lesbian liberals are always saying: “We are our brothers keeper”, therefore the debt is his family’s responsibility.
Also, what big bruv said. And the many useless layabout islanders in south auckland.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Phil… phone for you.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Good news. This guy needed to learn that the system is not intended to be used in this way, at all.
“However what we don’t know if how big is that minority who see it as a lifestyle”
Vote:I am prepared to bet that the total amount of taxpayer money being paid to people claiming the dole as a ‘lifestyle’ will be significantly less than the amount of tax being avoided by people deliberately operating trusts and LAQC’s to enhance their lifestyle. Lets focus on all the bludgers, not just the easy targets.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
The vast majority of people on the dole are looking for work, and would much rather be working. However what we don’t know if how big is that minority who see it as a lifestyle.
DPF, you really do need to get out more. I have tenants that have this down to a fine art and simply are not interested in work when one can go fishing or live in a house along with the DPB recipient whilst claiming the dole. Its actually endemic and I come across this almost daily.
Vote:Been going on for years and as I pointed out yesterday and again this morning Grandmother Sue was an expert at it. Teaching this and no doubt other beneficiaries how to make it work for them.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
As frog has pointed out, nothing about this guy’s case justifies Paula Bennett using it to argue that the work test for the unemployment benefit needs to be changed. She just needs to get WINZ to do their job better and identify people like this earlier.
The way he comes across, maybe he’s been on the wrong benefit all along.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Matt, correct and will continue as long as trust tax rates are lower than personal and company.
Vote:The ideal of course is to drive all taxation down to personal, i.e. trust 39%, company 30 and personal 27%.
That should do it but the problem for Key is that it would piss of a lot of his supporters perhaps, but then perhaps not once the dust settled.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
He shouldn’t been on a bloody benefit at all you stupid bloody socialist!
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Toad
The heading of frogs post was enough for me, as usual Frog is wrong, I would have pointed out the errors in Frog’s post but I see you guys are back to banning anybody who does not agree with you.
Leaving that aside, of course the bloody thing is broken, when parasites like Easton, Ure, Fuller and co can keep stealing from us without being challenged then the system is stuffed.
Bludgers have all day to do nothing, it is not an imposition to demand that they attend a weekly meeting with a WINZ case worker to justify why they should stay on the benefit, failure to attend should see an immediate cancellation of their benefit.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
@mattyroo
I suspect they will be chasing him for the three years’ worth of dole, given his admission of not having been to a single job interview in 3 years. But that decision is made by the Benefit Control Unit, not by his local office. It is likely in the pipeline, as is a possible prosecution if he has signed documents stating he is looking for work when he was not.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
The only place this cretin belongs is jail. Surely he is guilty of benefit fraud? Claiming the benefit while avoiding work.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
One would also hope that Easton gets evicted from his council flat today.
There are plenty of hard working people who are looking for a hand up and need a council flat, this parasite can sleep under a bridge for all I care.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
@big bruv 12:43 pm
WINZ can already do that. It doesn’t require a law change.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Toad
If you and Frog are against a law change then it automatically follows that the current system is not hard enough.
You know as well as I do that the Greens stand for increased benefits and have no issue at all with people making a lifestyle choice to be on the dole.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
He couldn’t be put in Jail, think of the additional tax dollars being allocated to the ‘welfare’ of this dole bludger
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
@david farrar: That is interesting because, now I do not know if you have read what I have written? What do you not understand?
@senzafine: When did we meet?
@jaba: I have provided a comprehensive remedial action to disengage long term unemployed. In my view the problem first to encounter is the disaffection. This engagement should be facilitate by an organisation capable in mainstream markets to provide such support – such as the Union of Fathers?
@Inentory2: Tell me please what you do not understand about the Attorney General allegation and file 13, and I will then attempt to spell it out for you in clearer language.
@Malcolm: Correct in my view as well, I told none any lie – the principle problem and a significant part of my justification for being long term unemployed was that I put in a plan on how to fix it. So why any be rude at me, for it taking the state three years for the fact to sink into the administration?
@mattyroo: I will sleep outside the Wellington Cathedral until the Anglican Church takes responsibility to prosecute the demise of paternalism – and that its demise has no justifiable cause.
@Viking2: You protect an established system for your comments, perpetuating the capitalist view. You have just cause to recognise there is a long term problem but in my view the focus of full employment is not the way to achieve full employment. It is to find out why these people (such as I am labeled) could treat the system with contempt. IN my case the answer is not contempt for the system as instead who operates it and the rulkes used to maintain any corruptionss of that maintenance.
@
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
@Political Busker
Oh dear, one of d4j’s mates.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
GOOD.
This leftie is not in favour of these sponges.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
@toad, not only was I looking for work I was finding and doing it. In fact my case load is so full I have a considerable backlog.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Political Busker
Care to tell one of your employers (me) why you feel you should be free to steal money from me every week because you cannot be bothered working for a living?
While you are at it, can you tell me why I am paying for the up keep of your bloody kids?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
@big bruv 12:49 pm
First half true, second half false, bruv. The Greens believe the work test for the dole should be rigourously applied. Not good enough that someone can be on the dole for 3 weeks without a job application, let alone 3 years.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
@RRM: Is this where people say they do not understand me, where it appears you have not comprehended what I said?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Are toad and big blouse the same person (split personality disorder ) ? Should stop talking to yourself Miss Blouse.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“The Greens believe the work test for the dole should be rigourously applied.”
Ha ha ha….good one Toad.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Political busker – I thought I was addressing the original post, not yourself.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
toad said “Oh dear, one of d4j’s mates.”
Flippin’ heck; I agree with toad! Are the planets correctly aligned today?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
political buster .. why don’t you go the whole hog and apply for all the other benefits allowed. Ms Fuller could help you in helping us all.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Actually bruv, toad’s claim could be fine, if those on the dole were cut, say, in half (numbers of course) and we were left with those who really did need short term assistance between jobs then I wouldn’t mind benefits being increased by a bit, 10% or something.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
@big bruv: You are a long way off the mark. Your animosity should not be directed at me and you are being appropriately directed in that wrong direction. The state gave me the unemployment benefit. I sought training in that period to be taught te reo Maori. The approached tutor told me would take my case personally after consulting with her supervisor and assured me after my question that she would get back to me because I knew when people dug into my tikanga history they would find my controversies at the top. As I suspected she never got back to me.
In general I am saying your anger (because you so far appear the rudest) and frustration is misdirected. Before you justify your criticism of me, answer to justify my position what it is the work that I have done and that I must continue to do.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
“I agree with toad!”
Flippin’ heck get off the green swamp juice mate.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Political busker: if you were finding and doing work to the extent that your case load is so full you have a considerable backlog, why are you on the benefit – is it because the “work” was unpaid?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Busker
Damn right I am angry, you are a parasite who is stealing money from genuine hard working Kiwis, the “state” gave you fuck all, every single working person in NZ is subsidising your lifestyle (or they were until today)
I had to laugh at your claim that you sought training in another language, care to tell me how this training would have improved your work prospects?
As for your “tikanga history” well, I cannot comment on that as I have no bloody idea what you are talking about and no interest what so ever in finding out.
I do note that D4J has come rushing to your defence so I can only surmise that you are also a dead beat dad who thinks that the “state” (tax payer) should pay your ex partner child maintenance just because you cannot be bothered getting off your arse to get a real job.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Toad and frog are right that this case isn’t evidence that the work test needs to be tightened. And it is definitely evidence that the previous government had presided over a regime at WINZ where they didn’t question anybody about anything.
Having said that, that isn’t to say that evidence doesn’t exist elsewhere. General health statistics show that NZers are getting healthier, as are pretty much all westerners. But the sickness beneficiary numbers have substantially increased in recent years. Seems funny, sounds like we need a tighter work test for these folks.
Also, unemployment has been historically low, but the number on the dole hasn’t dropped as far as we might expect. The workforce labour survey shows who is looking for work, and the number of people on the dole doesn’t correlate as well as it should with the number of people looking for work. Suggests that there are some people on the dole who aren’t looking for work.
I’d say we need a tighter work test.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
^^^ True. There needs to be some kind of “is there work out there?” test taken into account too though.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“I can only surmise that you are also a dead beat dad who thinks that the “state” (tax payer) should pay your ex partner child maintenance”
I tell you blouse you are so off the mark with that hurting comment. How long can your untruthful attacks go without serious consequences? I am so sick and tired of your malicious lies. Please note well Tony G.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
RRM
I went for a bit of a walk this morning, in my travels I called into a few shops, my local supermarket and Bunnings warehouse are both advertising for staff.
There ARE jobs available.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Oh dear, it seems he was feeling a bit faint and rushed off to the doctor. Next thing we will see an ACC claim for stress and approval of a sickness benefit.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
D4J
Is this man paying child maintenance or not?
It is a simple bloody question, why not answer it?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
D4J???
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
@david: no sorry in a meeting. Now preparing for another at 2pm. Most people are here now so it is difficult to get away. Yes the work is unpaid. I am a busker. If someone gives me a contribution (or koha) it helps. Extra earnings I make on the street chalking up questions for the public and taking the answers in survey form I can submit these in select committees, in court or however else I need. I lived in the main off $40 – $60 cash per week from the dole and would make extra on the street. I have not made enough to declare this to the IRD as required. I think you can earn $80 per week or something close.
Child support – yes every father/parent not living in the relationship pays child support. @Big bruv, you do not pay for my children I do. Your anger is in how you interpret the law and not in fact justified as consistent to the system. The child support order meant that the deductions came from my income. Now I have no income and I am part of the system. Before you rail at me for this you may want to consider the relationship between parent and child as more important as the financial duty of a parent to pay for the child to exist. If the money came as the second consideration there would be less stress on the obligation to provide and our child support debt would plummet. To this end some form of amnesty to get people back to providing for their offspring should be politically considered.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
BB – get a room. No one is interested in your infatuation with D4J.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
I’ll have a stab at understanding your point. So you were on the dole in order to devote your energies to promoting a scheme to help with unemployment? At what point did it become clear that the government wasn’t interested in your ideas and why didn’t you at that point get off the dole? Was the Manners Mall issue an add-on at the end?
Also, do you think your ideas about solving the unemployment problem would be more credible if you yourself had demonstrated how to get off the dole and back into work?
The dole is intended to help people in the short-term. It is not a self-certified stipend for unelected political activists.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Poor Benjamin, he seems to be struggling. I don’t understand why all of you seem so angry about a pittance for those finding it hard to cope.
I’ve been checking out mobile telephony and data for my short stay in NZ next month and, really the prices are high for pretty shoddy service. It seems to me that Telekom and Vodafone are sucking more blood and money out of all of you than Benjamin will ever get close to! Is there a “work test” that can be applied to this mob, or are they “close to” your legislaters in the Bee-Hive?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
@malcolm: That is a question not focused on the animosity but on the issue. The problem for the long term unemployed are social issues and the principle forcing men into being the main long term unemployed is that we simply do not care for men.
Loser, bludger, perpetrator of violence and sex offences, these are allegedly the male bastions. We do not interpret them to women as much as to men. The fact of this is that our suicide rate is so much higher and our support services least. I pretty much run court cases and file complaints. What you read about these in judgments is very far away from what is being challenged.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Bryla, many pittances make a bloody big pile. It is too easy (and too prevalent) “finding it hard to cope”, but those same people don’t seem to find it so hard squeezing every bit they can out of the public purse. Too many people here rort the state, which means they rip off other people here. That’s why I have to pay a lot of tax.
Yes, phones are expensive here. So expensive that no one on benefits can afford to have one. They have two instead, to feed both parts of the duopoly.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Political Busker – there is a way to be a full-time political activist and still earn a living. Set up a trust, find organisations and individuals who support what you are doing, ask them to donate to the trust, and get the trust to employ you. If enough people support your cause and your advocacy of it, the money will come rolling in. Fifty people at $20 a week and you’ve got a reasonable salary.
I probably shouldn’t be telling you this, because I don’t actually support what you are doing with Manners Mall – buses running through it will help reduce commute times, increase public transport patronage, and reduce traffic congestion.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Political Busker, it is good that you are fronting up here to try and explain yourself. The one thing I found well explained was this: “I am the only person who knows what it is I am talking about.”
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
It’s like different rules for different classes. Mr. Key and Mr. Heatley are repeated offenders and until now only Mr. Heatley is doing a public display of guilt where as this poor unemployed man had no chance of defending himself.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Poor Benjamin, he seems to be struggling. I don’t understand why all of you seem so angry about a pittance for those finding it hard to cope.
Thats his problem, he has admitted to being perfectly able to work, yet has decided to remai on the dole for his own reasons. Why should the rest of us have to fund his chosen lifestyle? There are plenty of other peopl in this country more deserving of his state supplied wage and house.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
“No one is interested in your infatuation with D4J.”
Praise the Lord for the sound of reason. “Infatuation” is not quite the right word, it’s more of a deranged obsession that has escalated to the point it’s rather bizarre to say the very least.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Pete George, i understand the sums. I also understand that while it’s pretty easy to confect outrage against the odd person like Benjamin, there’s also a lot of corporate welfare that goes on without critique while masquerading as sensible business incentives. Our Minister for Communications recently gave the television license holders a $250million rebate on their license fees in an election uear. Better than rent assistance any day.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Now I actually feel a bit sorry for you Benjamin. I don’t think you’ll understand but I will try to explain it for you: People are upset with you because you’re essentially stealing money from us in order to fund your lifestyle and your political crusades. We have enough elected politicians as it is, without unelected people taking our money by deception and claiming to represent us. If you want to be a political activist, please don’t expect me to pay for it. But if you really need us to pay, then please stand for election. That way you will actually have a mandate and legitimate claim to the money. At present you do not. You are a dole bludger, plain and simple.
Please don’t respond with some babble about suicide etc.
The real problem here is WINZ. There will always be people like Benjamin Easton, but what the hell have WINZ being doing for the last three years?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
It’s not just the odd person like Benjamin. There are many people who I think deserve help from the state, for a time while they need it. But there is also an ingrained culture in many that the state is their for their convenience, so they can enjoy a comfortable lifestyle paid for by other peoples taxes. It is a LARGE problem.
The amount of avoiding tax and creaming state benefits by people who earn enough to look after themselves is also huge. A common feeling seems to be “everyone else does it so if I don’t I’ll miss out”. It has become an epidemic of abuse.
Fortunately some of our politicians seem to be starting to get the picture – they can’t rort the system, and then at least they won’t be hypocrites when they enforce compliance more efficiently on everyone else.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
toad said “Political Busker – there is a way to be a full-time political activist and still earn a living. Set up a trust, find organisations and individuals who support what you are doing, ask them to donate to the trust, and get the trust to employ you. If enough people support your cause and your advocacy of it, the money will come rolling in. Fifty people at $20 a week and you’ve got a reasonable salary.”
toad unwittingly reveals the modus operandi of the Green Party and its many and varied “activists” ….
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Dude! Back to living on the streets?? WTF?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Uh, you do realise that all political parties receive donations?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Political Busker: the key here is that you have no claim on the state purse for unelected activities. The other things that are going on in the political system are, strictly speaking, things that we voted for. Nobody voted for you to bludge off us.
Bryla: every little bit counts.
Yes, there is corporate welfare, and the damn Labour govt brought it back in after we’d succeeded in getting rid of most of it. The ludicrous ETS is the biggest area of corporate welfare in recent years, similarly to in Aus those on the left of politics are going out of their way to buy off the large corporates. There’s a bloody awful alliance, but that’s what is happening.
I’m hoping that National get on to doing something about that (but not holding my breath). But two wrongs don’t make a right, and what Political Busker/Brian has been doing is flat out wrong.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
@ Repton – I was referring to the opening bit of toad’s statement:
“there is a way to be a full-time political activist and still earn a living.”
I should have added that it is the same modus operandi that the eco-terrorists from Sea Shepherd use
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Hmmmmm
Hey, can fifty of you give me twenty a week so I can be a political activist? I’m not keen on ramming ships though.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
@toad: Financing the challenges does not in fact engage the controversy. You become a popular speaker without getting anywhere that effects constitutional change. Like I have said my application was to fix long term unemployment by challenging its existence and living its condition. I did not try to hide and I am challenged in reply for being open. The matter of the controversy can be handled and I am articulate enough to argue back. Finding justice is more important than being funded to argue justice and if you cannot afford to argue justice then it will be left alone to fester. It is an environment built on markets and fear.
@malcolm: I understood what you said there is no need to patronise me. I have a protection order against me. I am a trained early childhood educator who has not committed any domestic violence. I cannot stand for parliament. I would be interested if you reply to understand what I am saying. The state paid me from money it collected. You do not pay me. If there is a problem for you it is not to do with me it is to do with how you interact with parliament. The way best to make change is to protest or lobby. To do that you have to be able to be funded in order to eat: After this I would be repeating myself.
@Pete George: et all, there are people who will always be long term unemployed while our society is structured as it is to the market and capitalist philosophy. While money is more important to the societal infrastructure those who cannot compete within its various markets and for whatever reason will falter – what is the 80 / 20 rule on businesses – 80% collapse? I argue many long term unemployment figures will be mitigated if not released once the social circumstances of the individual are considered and rationalised. The primary sticking point are matters from family law. If Malcolm does not want me to reply with this then he escapes from the problem – as does society at large.
@dime: I said to WINZ, wait until the court matters are resolved. Then once I have established the legal arguments on sovereignty and national authority then consider my matters. The fact is, to every reader’s horror who do not consider my value in the argument is that the state owes me – thousands. The plan I have put in way back in 2007 repays all my dole money when I am paid out in compensation for what has been done. This stands. While my detractors do not consider what I am saying my detractors will never figure out the extraordinary damage that has been done to dads – simply carnage.
The point is that those detracting are stuck in considering that I am a political activist because I am complaining about the system and how it did not treat me well and do not allow yourselves to consider that the matters I raise are particularly serious – claiming a challenge on national authority and the effects of a corrupted society that is overtaking the population. If these matters are trivialized and allowed to be trivialized on the grounds of comfort to the collective popular opinion and the key controversy left to flounder then in my view none can be surprised when economic collapses debilitate the Westminster law principled nations.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
“there are people who will always be long term unemployed while our society is structured as it is to the market and capitalist philosophy”
so youre a socialist?
we need to have some people unemployed… but that doesnt mean long term!
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
@dime: No I am a tribal democrat. I believe in integrating two systems – in New Zealand the main stem of integration is cultural. These at the moment are being challenged in a perversion of predetermined power. Whanau ora (Maori term of family health) is being considered to integrate into the mainstream system. This will be more than just by name it will be in concept. The concept of whanau ora includes the broader principle of family care and I am challenging that the transfer would be used to adopt a now proved and violent indirect discrimination against fatherhood and under Westminster law a direct discrimination against the child. If we do not fix this problem before it is adopted I suggest we are in for perpetual conflict – in both gender and culture.
As I have written on here before the Maori justice system I believe can be integrated in much the same fashion as Sharma law. Base communities are structured to allow a community to be healthy from its fringe with the punitive system on one side of the community and rehabilitation to the western model the other.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Political Busker: you might want to try and speak in English. I can make no sense at all of your garble. Are you sure you’re not using drugs?
Are you saying that the system is set up so that you cannot get a job, because it is a market system, and so we should all support you?
Are you saying that once the state collects taxes from me, I should have no interest in what they do with that money, as it isn’t my money any more?
Are you saying that because the family court (which I’ll agree is quite biased against men) is denying you access to your children, that you cannot get a job?
Can you make it nice and simple for us? Without some random mumbo jumbo about Whanau ora? What is actually stopping you from pumping gas in a service station?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
@PaulL:
1 Yes, no I am not on drugs.
Vote:2 No, I am saying long term unemployment is a problem relievable if considered a product of disassociation.
3 No, you should protest government before leveling any part of any tirade on the unemployed – or try living off the dole.
4 No, I am saying the problem of indirect discrinination against fatherhood is crippling our society, wounding our children.
5 No, because mumbo jumbo and whanau ora are not the same and ‘us’ I believe is a wider representation of readers than those prepared to fuel such matters as one in the same.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Yes, Political Busker, your responses indicate that you come very much from the d4j kindergarten of political “thought”.
That explains a lot.
Just get a job and learn to respect women instead of being part of the mad dad’s crusade against feminism. Oh, and pay for your kids, instead of being a deadbeat dad who hides behind the excuse of having no income when you make it clear yourself that you are not interested in earning one.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Benjamin, there’s no such thing as ‘state’ money. There is only money collected in taxes from taxpayers. For that reason it is perfectly correct to say that in taking the dole and making no effort to find work (a requirement for receiving the dole), you’re effectively stealing from me and everyone else in NZ who pays taxes.
I suggest you find a job, don’t touch any drugs and hopefully you’ll come right and then you can pursue your political aspirations in your spare time.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
I think toad was right when he said; “The way he comes across, maybe he’s been on the wrong benefit all along.”
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
@burt 7:36 pm
About 15 years ago, when I was working as a community paralegal adviser, a guy contacted me who was being hassled by WINZ about his failure to get employment. He had been on the dole for 9 years.
Upon requesting his WINZ file, I discovered that on his original application he had stated:
And he was put on an unemployment benefit, upon which he languished for 9 years. Go figure!
It doesn’t seem to matter what Government is in power – the level of competence at WINZ never improves. It is a totally dysfunctional Ministry.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Political Busker:
Does that not appear confused to you? Is it yes or no? If it is no, are there drugs prescribed to you that you should be on, that you’re not taking?
And I am saying that long term unemployment is a problem relievable if those who are long term unemployed get off their backsides and get a job. By your own admission you are capable of getting one and you are choosing not to. Long term unemployment is a problem solved one person at a time. If you get yourself a job you will (quite fairly) be able to claim to have done more to solve long term unemployment than most who comment on this blog.
If you choose not to do this, then what you are really doing is saying that:
a. You know more about how to deal with long term unemployment than those we the taxpayer currently pay to deal with it. Noting that we have some say in whether those people are employed or not through our elected representatives.
b. You are choosing, without any input from the rest of us, to spend our tax money in trying to bring about your ideas. You are suggesting that, unlike the rest of our employees, we should have no say in whether you do this or not, or how you do it.
Overall, this strikes me as extremely arrogant. You are assuming to know better than the rest of us, and you are choosing to spend our money following that idea. Based on what you’ve said on this blog so far, I’d feel comfortable in stating that, if given the choice, I’d be very very unlikely to agree that it is a good spend of my taxpayer money for you to do this.
You’ll notice that we have protested the government, and that the government cut off your dole pretty damn quick. We’re now remonstrating with you, because you seem to have no concept that what you’ve done is wrong, despite the government having already shown by their actions that they consider it to have been wrong. Do you really not understand that the dole is not provided so that you can act out your dreams? It is provided so that those who cannot support themselves get temporary relief, until they can support themselves. By your actions, you’ve called into disrepute all those who genuinely need it, and tarred them with your brush. Shame on you.
Agreed in general terms. However, I would say that if you present in person anything like you do on this blog, then I can see why a judge would have difficulty understanding what you were on about, and decide that you were a wack job. Just because in general I agree that the family court is often giving decisions that are detrimental to society doesn’t mean that I agree that they made the wrong decision in your case. Nor does it mean I think they made the right decision – I have no idea of the facts. Just saying that your presentation style may not have helped you there.
Really? What exactly does it mean then? And how is it in any way relevant to you getting a job? The way I normally would go about getting a job is to go somewhere that has need of workers, and ask them for a job. I usually take a CV with me, wear some good clothes, and take care to give a good impression. Nowhere in there did I do anything with whanau ora. How exactly are you going about getting a job?
See, that is just garble. What does it mean? Can you say it in English? BTW, the saying is “one and the same”, but I really have no idea what it is doing in this context.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
toad
Can you send me an email please on bigbruv99@hotmail.com.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Toad: interesting. Did the pain in his hip make him unfit for any job at all? Or just for the job he used to do? This is my concern with ACC (hidden welfare) and sickness beneficiaries. We aren’t doing anyone any favours when we encourage them to believe they are now incapable of any job because they have a condition that prevents them from doing some jobs. We need to retrain and reskill people, but the system doesn’t seem to encourage that.
At a macro level, the fact that many sickness beneficiaries are convicted of crimes that obviously required a reasonable level of mobility tells me that that benefit has a reasonable number of people on it who probably could do a job. Planning to spend the rest of your life on a benefit is probably not doing anything to help people’s integration into society.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
PaulL – it made him unfit to do any job he was qualified to do. He was an immigrant from a Pacific Island, and had little in the way of educational qualifications – not qualified to do anything other than labouring work.
Once he was on invalid’s benefit he became eligible for Training Incentive Allowance, and set about attempting to get some qualifications. Last I know, he was studying economics (courtesy of the Training Incentive Allowance that Paula Bennett has now abolished for tertiary courses).
I moved on to another job, so don’t know how he went from there.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
toad – could he not get a student loan when unemployed?
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
PaulL, re the second part of your 8:54 comment, many sickness beneficiaries areon the benefit as a consequenceof a mental, rather than physical, illness.
Mental illness predisposes people to criminal activity, and the physically fit ones can sometimes be particularly violent.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
You’re a very patient man, Paul.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Another kiwi moaner with entitlement syndrome that thinks the rest of us owe him a living.
And at the same time battling against capitalism, oh how cute, what a hero.
Those evil rich pricks have been paying for your last three years of idleness, you useless idiot.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
nick – i think hes ill.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
dime, what you think he is ill? Dam straight he is…
All interesting comments… Yes for sure there are some whom are on some sort of benefit that is legitimate, but man alive, there is a large proportion ripping fuck out of the system……
It is astounding that it doesnt seem to matter if it is a blue or red government, but no one is willing to go hard and have one hell of a shake up in WINZ….. So many in WINZ believe the shit they hear, cause it is so prevalent…. It is going to take many years to get rid of this behavior that the lefties wanted to breed and instill into people, dam they did a good job…. Useless fuckers…
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Where did you get that dime?
Vote:If he is will then winz would have put him on some sort of sickness benefit.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Toad
“Mental illness predisposes people to criminal activity, and the physically fit ones can sometimes be particularly violent.”
Now that, is a statement of fact.
Finally we find something else to agree on.
Vote:February 26th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Does anyone else find it highly amusing (and a little bit sad) that perennial revolutionaries like this moron, Che Guevara t-shirts and all, claim to be fighting the big bad capitalist state while at the same time holding out a hand for a stipend…. what a joke
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Was just reading that Che Guevara liked to wear a Rollex – so socialists have long been hypocrites. Even Karl Marx lived the high life on his father’s money.
Anyway, also annoying that this guy got a council flat. Another way the long suffering ratepayers and taxpayers are supporting him. What was his special need that council saw fit to give him subsidised accommodation?
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 12:03 am
This is not right. The guy is mentally disabled. He needs care.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 1:12 am
We use to have places these people went to, to get back in control of their lives and work toward reintegrating into society. Now remind me again who was health minister when they were all shut down….
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 6:56 am
Hmm, using a supposed mental illness to publically proclaim he is not willing to work as he has more important things to do.
Is his name Cameron Slater?
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Che was a fraud; another totalitarian mass murderer in waiting. Bloody lucky for a lot of people the Bolivians got him when they did!
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Let’s stop beating around the bush: this guy is a parasite, a bludger by his own choice, who deserves no benefit since he’s able-bodied and not seeking employment.
How many of this type of “activist” are there? Thousands, I reckon. All paid by us.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 10:31 am
@Malcolm – I said “The state paid me from money it collected”
@PaulL – 1/ A joke – but no matter the answer is no. 2/ Point 2 makes no effort to engage what I have said. Before you continue, why not answer what I am saying. You are refusing to comprehend the problem and determined to demand your status in the problem. While you consider a problem is not a problem you will forever go about finding ways to remedy (market) the way it does damage a) Yes – this is clear in David’s posting comments – and referred to later, that I apparently am the only person who knows what I am talking about – in the political market and articulate on this blog, the reply is either yes as I have said or I am the only one with the endurance to get past the abuse being hurled at those who would otherwise challenge. B) Yes where the answer is much the same as a) but the groups disaffected in this way are opposite if not otherwise different. Conclusion: The world is flat. 3/ First and second sentences: You show then rather that the government can be manipulated by one blog – one set of views. It takes me many years of sacrifice and hardship to get to where I can openly challenge a bad and brutal system and you take credit for effect over 24 hours, without honestly challenging my point – why has it taken this long to get this kind of bad and brutal action? Third sentence 3: You have already committed to a position where you discount my integrity as a dream – and this concept of status rationalizes your justification – you refuse to believe there is a problem. Fourth and fifth and sixth sentences: Again you demonstrate that you refuse to accept there may be a problem beyond your consideration – and you title me as arrogant – who should consider shame? 4/ I have enclosed the Supreme Court judgment. There, are two things missing. A) The matter of costs was far more complex than has been delivered – the only just reason that it could be not included in my mind is that the presentation was not in the correct format – but this does not stack up because the substantive information covers format carefully and with emphasis. B) The definition of jurisdiction between the Environment Court and the judicial review is blurred – and I believe the Court has left this open to be furthered – to which I will oblige given the case is unprecedented and the circumstances unique (not my opinion – it is accepted on the Manners Mall case). The judges understand me. Why it may be so hard for the executive (MSD) to understand me is they are subject to lobby groups such as you suggest – and I add – for those who are still with me in understanding what I say – this independence in compromised often enough appears to compromise the legislature. 6/ There is a bridge between the concepts you and I discuss and in my view you have no concept of how to cross it. The submission/proposal I put to MSD was called No End Bridging. I don’t yet speak Maori otherwise I would have put this comment in by interpretation – that would have really pissed every one off. Conclusion: I said one in the same.
As for the rest of it: I spend my time helping people get out of places where other people drive them to because they take it upon themselves to gain ground for driving other people. Like in the manner of running a bus through a pedestrian simply [if] to satisfy the key attractor…
EASTON v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL SC 99/2009 [26 February 2010]
Vote:IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 99/2009
[2010] NZSC 10
BETWEEN BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON Applicant
AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Respondent
Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Wilson JJ
Counsel: Applicant in person C M Stevens for Respondent
Judgment: 26 February 2010
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1] Mr Easton seeks leave to appeal a judgment of the Court of Appeal1 dismissing an appeal from the High Court declining Mr Easton’s application for interim relief in judicial review proceedings filed in that court and allowing in part his appeal against the High Court’s order fixing security for costs in the judicial review proceedings. The underlying judicial review proceedings in the High Court were brought in connection with a resolution by the Wellington City Council to undertake a special consultative procedure in respect of a proposal to revoke the status of a pedestrian mall. It has been overtaken by events which transpired after
1 [2009] NZCA 513 (Arnold, Randerson and Allan JJ).
Mr Easton’s application for interim relief was declined. Council then proceeded with the special consultative procedure under s 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 and ultimately decided on 11 December 2009 the status of the pedestrian mall. In respect of that decision there is a right of appeal to the Environment Court under s 336 of the Local Government Act 1974. Another party has appealed under s 336. Mr Easton has not, perhaps because the present appeal seeking interim relief is still live pending determination of the present application or perhaps because, as counsel for the Council suggests, he is associated with the Incorporated Society which has taken the appeal.
[2] The matters of complaint in Mr Easton’s judicial review proceedings concern alleged deficiencies in the decision making processes of Council. They include allegations of pre-determination, insufficient public involvement, and conflicts of interest. All such matters, if valid, can be addressed in the appeal against the further decision of Council of 11 December 2009. In the result, the present application is a challenge to preliminary processes which, if flawed, can be fully ventilated on appeal to the Environment Court if they have not been corrected by the subsequent decision of 11 December 2009 and the process there followed.
[3] In the circumstances Mr Easton’s application for interim relief faced two formidable problems: the applicant could not show that he would be prejudiced if the consultation proceeded (because he could appeal the outcome which followed the consultation) and the interim relief would prevent participatory processes in local government. In the High Court and on appeal to the Court of Appeal the lack of prejudice and prematurity of the proceedings was stressed. The Court of Appeal, in particular, pointed out that it was inherent in the special consultative procedure that the Council put out a proposal for consultation. The applicant’s position that any such proposal was pre-determined could not be reconciled with the statutory scheme. As the Court of Appeal said:2
If the Council approaches the consultation with a closed mind or does not genuinely consider the submissions made to it, its ultimate decision may well be open to challenge on appeal or review. The same will apply if the
2 At [14] and [15].
Council does not follow the process prescribed by s 83 … in these circumstances, Mr Easton’s proceedings seem to us to be premature.
[4] The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court refusal of interim relief on the basis that Mr Easton had not made out the ground for interim relief under s 8 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 because the order was unnecessary to preserve his position. In addition, however, to the fact that the grounds for interim relief had not been established, the Court of Appeal considered, in application of the principle in Carlton United Breweries Limited v Minister of Customs,3 that the weakness of the substantive case (because of the ability to appeal the eventual decision following consultation) was also fatal to the appeal.
[5] The conclusions of the High Court and Court of Appeal on the appropriateness of interim relief were made in the application of settled principles and, quite apart from the discretionary nature of the relief under s 8 of the Judicature Amendment Act, were undoubtedly correct. No point of public importance which would justify entertaining further appeal has been shown. Any deficiencies in the processes adopted by Council, if not cured by further consideration and determination, can be raised on statutory appeal. There is no occasion for this Court to grant leave in respect of the concurrent determinations of the lower court as to the inappropriateness of interim relief.
[6] The second point on which leave to appeal is sought is the setting of security for costs. In the High Court, Ronald Young J set security for costs at $12,000 on the basis that, if Mr Easton was unsuccessful, the Council’s costs on a Category 2B basis would be $28,480 based on the anticipated length of the trial. That amount the Court of Appeal reduced to $8,000, for reasons that are unclear from the judgment, while acknowledging that the decision was a discretionary one which should not lightly be interfered with. In the Court of Appeal Mr Easton’s genuineness was accepted. So too was the fact that as an acknowledged impecunious plaintiff he would find it difficult to meet any amount by way of security for costs, with the result that the proceedings would be struck out for non-payment of that security. Against these considerations, however, the Court of Appeal pointed out that Mr Easton would not
3 [1986] 1 NZLR 423 at [430] per Cooke J.
be deprived of a remedy: he could participate in the process underway and, following final decision, would have a right of appeal under s 336 of the Local Government Act 1974. In addition it was possible, once appeal processes had been exhausted, that s 296 of the Resource Management Act 1991 would permit judicial review proceedings in respect of the substantive decision, if eventually flawed. Relevant too was the view expressed by the Court of Appeal that there was little or no prospect of success for Mr Easton’s case “as presently formulated”.4
[7] The two principal considerations that weighed with the Court of Appeal have considerable force. Appeal pursuant to s 336 of the Local Government Act 1974 was available to Mr Easton and is presently being pursued by at least one appellant. Relevant to the criteria for leave in this Court is the consideration that the case seems to have little or no prospect of success. It has been overtaken by a substantive determination which can be challenged through appeal both for procedural error and wrong result. The further prospect of judicial review of the substantive determination remains.
[8] More directly, Rule 5.45 of the High Court Rules confers jurisdiction to require security for costs wherever the court is satisfied that the plaintiff in proceedings will be unable to pay costs if unsuccessful. That condition was clearly made out here. The court is empowered to order security for costs in its discretion “if it thinks it is just in all the circumstances”. As noted in McLachlan v MEL Network this rule, prompted by fairness to the defendant, may mean in some circumstances that the plaintiff will be prevented from pursuing a claim. In that case it was suggested that:5
An order having that effect should be made only after careful consideration and in the case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the courts for a genuine plaintiff is not lightly to be denied.
This responsibility was discharged by the Court of Appeal in the present case.
[9] The Court of Appeal weighed the strength of the underlying case and noted the more direct statutory remedy of appeal which could still be exercised (and which
4 At [19].
5 (2002) 16 PRNZ 747 (CA) at [15].
it might be said does not impede the participatory processes envisaged by the Local Government Act 1974 to be undertaken before decision, processes that the underlying substantive claim seeks to impede). The Court noted the impecuniosity of the plaintiff and was prepared to reduce the amount ordered for security for costs, presumably to meet the applicant’s circumstances and to minimise any impediment to accessing justice. The very setting of security for costs inevitably imposes a hurdle, which recognises the risk to the defendant through the impecuniosity of the defendant and is particularly important in circumstances where the case sought to be advanced is weak. The Court of Appeal did not act on wrong principle. The matter was one for it to weigh in context, as it did. The Court of Appeal was fully conscious of the principle of access to the courts, which is to be found in s 27(3) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The assessment was a proportionate and contextual assessment, with which we agree. An absolutist submission that the setting of security for costs is contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act could not prevail against s 4 of that Act, quite apart from s 5 considerations.
[10] For these reasons, the application for leave to appeal is declined. In the circumstances, and as did the Court of Appeal, we make no order as to costs.
Solicitors:
DLA Phillips Fox, Wellington