11. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Does Work and Income pay towage and storage costs for beneficiaries whose cars have been impounded because they have been caught drink-driving?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
Beneficiaries can get an advance payment of their benefit or a special-needs grant if they have an immediate and essential need. Work and Income staff will consider all the circumstances, including the effect of the situation on the person’s family or children, whether the person himself or herself can afford to pay, and whether the person will be able to afford the repayments. The amount of the advance will be the least amount required to meet the essential need of the person and his or her family, and the person then has to repay that money out of his or her benefit. The current policies in these areas are unchanged from those developed by Roger Sowry in 1998 and 1999.
Why did the Minister say in answer to written question No. 20337 in December last year that it was unusual and exceptional for Work and Income to pay towage and car storage fees for beneficiaries, when, in fact, tow-truck drivers around the country told TV3 just yesterday that Work and Income regularly paid them to release cars that have been impounded by order of the police, and in fact direct-credit those payments?
The member confuses two situations: one where there might be illegal activity and one where there may not be. Both of those are situations where the tow-truck company may well have the fees owing paid by Work and Income. I will give the House a real scenario—literally—not from a tow-truck company but from Work and Income records. A woman, “Mary”—that is not her real name—receives the invalids benefit and looks after her granddaughter, who has spina bifida, is on dialysis, and is in the final stages of renal failure. This woman’s car was towed from the Starship Children’s Health car-park, despite her having a permit from the hospital for car-parking, while she was there getting treatment for her granddaughter. The security company towed the car regardless of the notice. A loan of $100 was given to that woman for the recovery of her car from the towing company. I think that is fair enough; it is a tragedy that Judith Collins does not.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
What would be the alternative approach to dealing with these cases?
The alternative approach advocated by the National Party seems to be for the towing and storage fees to remain unpaid. Let me tell the House what would happen in that situation. After 10 days from when the empowerment finishes, the towing company can sell the car and it would keep the money, so the family concerned would be left with no car, they would continue to repay any money owing to a finance company on the car, and they would descend into more and more debt. So we have no car and more debt for a beneficiary, and a towie with more money in his or her pocket. That is National Party policy.
Why did the Minister also say that Work and Income could not advise how much had been spent on towage fees, when it turns out that Work and Income direct-credits those tow-truck companies; and why is she using an example of a woman with very serious needs, when we are actually talking about drunk drivers?
As I explained to the member in the answer to my previous question, they are all actually classified under the same heading, and other examples of advances on benefits are also classified under that heading, which is why Work and Income gave me the advice to give her an accurate answer to her question, which I always endeavour to do. Those figures I gave her in answers last year were estimates.
Does the Minister accept that drunk drivers and disqualified drivers frequently cause car accidents; and how can she justify Work and Income using taxpayer money to help these dangerous and irresponsible people get right back behind the wheel?
It may surprise the member to learn that some families who have beneficiaries amongst their members have only one car per family, and it may well be that in order for that family to maintain their essential needs, which is the criterion for an advance on their benefit, the car may well be needed by another member of the family.
What does the Minister say to the families of people maimed or killed by drunk or disqualified drivers, when they hear her suggest that these fees owed on impounded cars are just like any other debt, and that it is quite OK for Work and Income to pay up when the driver was drunk, disqualified, or because, in some cases, the car itself has posed a threat and the police have impounded it?
I would say to the House that I support advances of payment to beneficiaries when they meet the criterion, which is that that person or his or her family has an immediate and essential need. I would prefer that to be the way to remedy the situation, rather than the alternative of their having to pay high interest to a loan shark, which the member may well be advocating as a supplementary to her policy, or that the tow-truck company can sell the car and the beneficiary ends up with no car and more debt.
Is the Minister prepared to instruct Work and Income to cease encouraging disqualified and unlicensed drivers to get back behind the wheel in this way, or will she continue to say that it is just like any other debt, and include drunk drivers along with people who are genuinely in need?
My expectation is that there are no circumstances at all under which Work and Income would assist people to continue to break the law. The advance of their benefit payment is made if they meet the criterion for an essential and immediate need. If the member has a mate who has lied to Work and Income in order to get his or her benefit I suggest that she tables the information, or gives it to me privately, and that person will be dealt with appropriately by the department.