$49.95 pullover sparks two-year court battle

LAWRENCE SMITH/Sunday News

MONEY WORRIES: Graham Foster with the troublesome shoes and pullover.

Relevant offers

A beneficiary who was refused a Work and Income grant to pay for a $50 pullover and a $140 pair of shoes has spent two years fighting the government through the courts, costing the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

And even though Graham Foster has now been turned down by the Appeal Court, he says he's not ready to give up, as he wants greater recognition of the poverty beneficiaries live in.

"I'm not prepared to just drop it," he told the Sunday Star-Times.

Foster, who has been on a sickness benefit since 2004, and an invalid's benefit since 2007, applied for assistance to buy a pair of shoes and the pullover in August 2007.

He submitted a quote of $139.95 for the shoes and $49.95 for the pullover, saying he needed them because of normal wear and tear, and because of the cold weather.

Work and Income agreed to an advance on his $374-a-week benefits, to be repaid at $3 a week.

But Foster, a former Ministry of Defence social policy adviser, insisted that he shouldn't have to pay the money back, because of what he described as "poxy" benefits and because his financial difficulties amounted to an emergency – which the state makes provision for.

Work and Income's decision was then reviewed twice internally and then by the Social Security Appeal Authority in 2008, which agreed Foster should pay the money back.

The authority said a grant could only be given if the clothes were destroyed in a "fire, flood or other disaster or stolen", or if going without the grant would cause "serious hardship".

Foster then appealed to the high court in February last year, where Justice Patrick Keane upheld the authority's decision. Foster made one more unsuccessful application to the high court before going to the Appeal Court, whose decision was released last month.

Foster told the Star-Times the various judges displayed a lack of understanding of how difficult it is to live on a benefit. That attitude, he said, is reflected by society.

"Beneficiaries are generally considered proliferating bludgers, feeding off the genuine hard-working taxpayer. We get a lot of bad publicity and bad press."

He said legal experts had estimated the cost to the Ministry of Social Development of defending his persistent court action could be anything from $30,000 to $250,000.

Because he had been representing himself, the cases had cost him nothing except "the odd $11 train fare".

As part of the earlier appeal, the Social Security Appeal Authority questioned items listed in Foster's domestic budget, including $30 for cellphone, internet and phone line at his shared accommodation.

It said: "It is surprising that the appellant can afford to buy the Listener and pay for an internet connection but cannot budget for clothing."

Foster remains adamant the ministry could approve his claim but won't for fear more beneficiaries will ask for clothing grants. "What they will say is that, if we don't challenge this, it will open the floodgates."

Act MP Dr Muriel Newman said Foster's court actions had gone too far but were a product of "the system". "The attitude is, if you do need a jumper and pair of shoes they [the taxpayer] can pay for it. It's an indictment on the system. People can go to an op shop and get a pair of shoes for $5 and he's definitely chosen not to take that path."

She said there were better ways to campaign for the plight of beneficiaries than cost the government thousands of dollars, and that while many New Zealanders were struggling financially, most were "resilient" and looked for "alternatives".

Foster said while $3 a week might sound like "chicken feed", for him to pay it would mean going without something else.

"The fact is, that beneficiaries live in poverty. When you're already in debt and you live below the poverty line, it's exacerbated; $3 to you is trivial, but to me it means that I have to go without something else."

- © Fairfax NZ News