This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Official Information request 'Review of Decision'.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefits Review Committee 
Panel Members  
Information Pack 
 
 
 
To be read in conjunction with the 
Report Writers Information Pack 
 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Contents 
Overview ............................................................................................................ 1 
Natural Justice ..................................................................................................... 1 
Benefit Review Process ......................................................................................... 3 
The Co-ordinators Process ..................................................................................... 4 
Legislation .......................................................................................................... 6 
Sections 391 - 394 of the Social Security Act 2018 ......................................... 6 
Schedule 7 Benefits review committees ......................................................... 8 
Social Security Regulations 2018 – 246-247 ................................................... 9 
Asking for a Review of Decision ............................................................................ 11 
A review of decision is an opportunity for: ............................................................. 11 
Jurisdiction - can the BRC review the decision? ....................................................... 11 
What can’t be reviewed under section 397,400 ....................................................... 11 
Decisions made on medical grounds ............................................................ 11 
Some Employment and Training Assistance decisions including: ...................... 12 
Some Social Housing decisions including: .................................................... 12 
Service complaints ................................................................................... 12 
Other decisions made by the Ministry that are not reviewable ......................... 12 
Matter heard previously ............................................................................ 13 
Exceptions .............................................................................................. 13 
Examples of Fundamental Breaches of Natural Justice ................................... 13 
Out of Time Reviews .......................................................................................... 15 
Internal review ........................................................................................ 15 
Report to the BRC .................................................................................... 15 
Process if matter outside the jurisdiction of the Benefits Review Committee ............... 16 
Correction Power ............................................................................................... 16 
Information for the Benefits Review Committee ...................................................... 17 
Reports to the Committee ................................................................................... 17 
New information ................................................................................................ 17 
New information provided when the applicant applies for an ROD .................... 17 
New information provided prior to the BRC .................................................. 17 
New information presented at a BRC ........................................................... 18 
Additional information required for the BRC to make a decision ....................... 18 
New information provided after the BRC hearing but before the decision has been 
sent to the applicant and the Ministry ......................................................... 18 
New information provided after the BRC decision has been made and the findings 
have been sent out to the applicant in the ‘Report of the BRC’ ........................ 18 
Personal Representations .................................................................................... 18 
Resources available to the BRC to help them make their decision .............................. 19 
Pre Hearing Procedures ....................................................................................... 20 
The Panel ......................................................................................................... 20 
Disqualification .................................................................................................. 20 
Impartiality ....................................................................................................... 20 
Procedure ......................................................................................................... 20 
Disruption ......................................................................................................... 21 
Contents 
26 November 2018 
Version 9 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Chairperson ...................................................................................................... 21 
Pre-hearing Preparations ..................................................................................... 21 
Requests for taping a hearing .............................................................................. 21 
Chairperson’s Guide ........................................................................................... 23 
The Hearing ...................................................................................................... 25 
Setting up ......................................................................................................... 25 
Notes ............................................................................................................... 25 
Presentations .................................................................................................... 25 
Evidence ........................................................................................................... 26 
Credibility ............................................................................................... 26 
Inferences ............................................................................................... 26 
Standard of Proof ..................................................................................... 26 
Weight of Evidence ................................................................................... 27 
Motive .................................................................................................... 28 
Representation .................................................................................................. 28 
Adjournments .................................................................................................... 28 
Confidential Information ..................................................................................... 28 
Examples ....................................................................................................... 28 
Family Court documents ..................................................................................... 30 
Decisions .......................................................................................................... 31 
Making Decisions ............................................................................................... 31 
Administrative Law and Natural Justice ................................................................. 32 
Illegality ................................................................................................. 32 
Unreasonableness .................................................................................... 32 
Unfairness ............................................................................................... 32 
Consistency ............................................................................................. 32 
Available Decisions ............................................................................................. 33 
Post Hearing Procedures ..................................................................................... 34 
Documenting the decision ................................................................................... 34 
Report of the BRC QA and Signoff ........................................................................ 34 
Appendix 1: Benefits Review Committee Notes ....................................................... 35 
Appendix 2: Glossary of terms ............................................................................. 36 
Appendix 3: Frequently asked questions ................................................................ 37 
  
Contents 
26 November 2018 
Version 9 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Overview 
Benefits Review Hearings are a chance for a review panel to take a fresh look at 
decisions made by the Ministry of Social Development. 
The Benefits Review Committee is a review body that is established by legislation to 
make correct and fair decisions with regard to procedure and law. 
This guide is intended to assist you in discharging that responsibility. 
The Benefits Review process is an important part of ensuring that correct decisions are 
made by the Ministry on a case by case basis. The Benefits Review Hearing is an 
exercise of the Applicant’s right to challenge a decision of the Ministry and for the 
committee to review the Ministry’s decision in a fair and independent manner. 
Natural Justice 
As a member of the panel it is very important that you act in accordance with the 
principles of natural justice. 
Natural justice is a concept that has been around in the law for a long time. At its most 
simple, it could be described as the duty of judicial and administrative officials to act 
fairly.    
It has two parts: 
1.  The rule that a person should not be a judge in their own case. This means that 
you must act impartially when you sit on a panel. Impartiality is discussed further 
on page 7 of this pack. 
2.  The rule that a person must always be given a chance to be heard. There are a 
number of aspects to this, which you should keep in mind at all stages of the 
review process; these are discussed below. 
You should ensure that both the applicant and the Ministry are given the opportunity to 
explain their view of the case. This means that each party is able to state their case and 
that you, as the panel, take into account what each party has said.  
Sometimes it may seem that the information being given is not directly relevant to the 
issue.  It may be necessary to ask the party to move on to the next point, but you 
should ensure that they still get the opportunity to state their case. You should tell them 
that you have understood the point that they making but explain that you need to move 
the process on. 
It often helps to summarise the main points of the case made by each party at the end 
of their submissions. This lets them know you have taken on board what they have said. 
Sometimes a new point may come up after one or both parties have already presented 
their main case.  In this situation, give each party the chance to respond to that new 
point. 
The right to be heard also includes a person’s right to hear the case against them. In 
practice, this means that each party is given the opportunity to hear the main points of 
the case of the other party. If someone does not understand the other party’s case it is 
very hard for them to respond, that person may be denied the opportunity to address 
Overview 

Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
the points they need to argue their case properly. This means that both parties should 
be present throughout the BRC hearing to ensure they can hear and if required, respond, 
to any additional points. 
If you are unsure of the point that one party is trying to make, the chances are the other 
party is also unsure, so ask the party who made the point to clarify. 
A person’s right to know the case against them also means that the panel should let the 
parties know about any policy, cases, or legislation which the panel thinks affects the 
case, but the parties themselves have not referred to. Again this gives the parties a 
chance to respond and make the best submissions that they can. 
Although it is important to treat both the Ministry and the applicant equally, you should 
recognise that the Ministry has a natural advantage. The Ministry representative will 
have access to the relevant law and policy and legal advice; the applicant may not have 
this. To minimise this imbalance of power, focus on ensuring that the applicant has a full 
opportunity to be heard. Try and assist the applicant by pointing them to relevant 
legislation and policy and, if necessary, explaining it to them. 
If you have sought further information, in particular a legal interpretation relating to a 
specific point, suggest that the applicant may like to get some advice from an advocacy 
service and ask the Ministry to provide the applicant with the information available on 
applicant representation services in their area. 
The following pages set out the processes, timeframes and guidelines for Benefits 
Review Committee Panel Members.  See page 14 for more information on Fundamental 
Breaches of Natural Justice.  
 
Overview 

Version 9 
26 November 2018 





 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Benefit Review Process 
The following flow chart and explanation are a general overview of the BRC process 
(time frame shown as maximum days). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefit Review Process 

Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
The Co-ordinators Process 
1.  Most decisions made by the Ministry can be reviewed by the Benefits Review 
Committee.  When  a  decision  is  made  to  reduce or decline a service applied for, 
review of decision rights are given to the applicant in writing. An applicant has three 
months to ask a BRC to review a decision.  However if there are good reasons for 
the delay, a BRC can accept an application for review outside the three month 
period. 
2.  The applicant can apply in writing for a review of decision. 
3.  The Ministry will then complete an administrative check (internal review) of the 
initial decision, taking into account any new information provided. If the Ministry still 
believes the original decision is correct (in part or full) a report to the Benefits 
Review Committee is prepared and forwarded to the BRC co-ordinator. The 
timeframe for this process is 14 working days. 
4.  A copy of the report to the BRC, all relevant papers, and a description of the Benefits 
Review Hearing process is sent to the applicant, inviting them to attend the hearing 
and giving them the option of providing further information if they wish. 
5.  The co-ordinator then sets the hearing date, time and venue. The panel (made up of 
a community representative and two Ministry staff members) is arranged and the 
applicant is advised. 
6.  The co-ordinator then sends a copy of the report and all relevant papers to the 
panel, so that each panel member can read all the information before the hearing. 
7.  The hearing is then held. If the applicant chooses not to appear the review is held on 
papers only (Ministry doesn’t appear either). If the applicant appears then the 
Ministry will also appear. Representations are made to the committee from both 
parties. 
8.  The committee will then decide if they have enough information from the report, any 
submissions, and representations made in person to make a decision on the case. If 
there is not enough information (or additional information is raised at the hearing) 
then the committee can ask for further information to be provided on specific points. 
The hearing will be adjourned until that information can be provided. A date should 
be set at the hearing, within 10 working days, for the BRC to re-convene.  
The BRC can ask for new information relevant to the decision under review from the 
applicant or the Ministry. In cases where new information is presented the applicant 
and/or the Ministry must be given the opportunity to comment. If the information 
requested is not provided the committee has to make a decision based on the 
information before them. 
9.  The decision making of the committee is done in confidence; neither the applicant 
nor Ministry is present when a decision is reached. The committee can decide to 
uphold, uphold in part or overturn the decision of the Ministry. The legislation states 
that the BRC must uphold, vary, or revoke a decision.  
10. The committee must record the reasons for its decision in writing. The decision is 
signed by all panel members. If the decision is to uphold in part (vary) or overturn 
(revoke) the original decision instructions will be issued to the Ministry to ensure 
that the decision of the committee is followed. A copy of the report is sent to the 
applicant. If the decision was to uphold part of or all of the original decision 
The Co-ordination Process 

Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
(confirm) then the applicant is advised of their appeal rights to the Social Security 
Appeal Authority. 
11  If the committee makes recommendations in their report the co-ordinator ensures 
they are considered by the Ministry and that HIYA is noted with the outcome of 
these considerations. 
 
The Co-ordination Process 

Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Legislation 
The legislation that provides for Reviews of Decision is covered under Section 391- 394 
of the Social Security Act 2018, Schedule 7 and Regulations 246, 247 . 
 
Sections 391 - 394 of the Social Security Act 2018 
391 Right to seek review of specified decision of MSD made under delegation 

(1)  
A person may make an application to MSD for a review by a benefits review 
committee of a decision of MSD, but only if— 
(a)  
the person and the decision are of kinds specified in the same row of the 
following table; and 
(b)  
the decision is made in the exercise of a function, power, or discretion 
conferred by a delegation; and 
(c) 
the decision is made in relation to the person or estate; and 
(d)  
the decision is not one that section 340(3)(b), 343(b), 371(b), or 396 
prevents from being appealed to the appeal authority (for example, 
because that kind of decision is appealable to the medical board). 
 
Row  Person who may make 
Decision to be reviewed 
application for review 
Decision under specified social assistance enactment 

An applicant or a beneficiary 
A decision of MSD made under an enactment 
referred to in section 397(1)(a) to (g) 
Decision under mutual assistance provisions in reciprocity agreement 

An applicant or beneficiary or 
A decision of MSD made using a power under section 
other person 
384 (MSD may use mutual assistance provisions to 
recover debts) (referred to in section 398) 
Decision to recover from spouse or partner who misleads MSD excess amount beneficiary 
obtained
 

A beneficiary’s spouse or 
A decision of MSD— 
partner 
(a) to recover, from a spouse or partner who 
misleads MSD, an excess amount the beneficiary 
obtained; and  
(b) made under regulations made under section 444 
(referred to in section 399(1)); and 
(c) that includes the decisions in row 1 of the table 
in section 399(1) 
Decision to recover from spouse or partner apportioned excess amount beneficiary obtained 
by fraud
 

A beneficiary’s spouse or 
A decision of MSD— 
partner 
(a) to recover from a spouse or partner an 
apportioned excess amount the beneficiary 
obtained by fraud; and 
(b) made under regulations made under section 444 
(referred to in section399(1)); and 
(c) that includes the decisions in row 2 of the table 
in section 399(1)  
Decision to recover from spouse or partner unapportioned excess amount beneficiary 
obtained by fraud
 

A beneficiary’s spouse or 
A decision of MSD— 
partner 
(a) to recover from a spouse or partner an 
Legislation 

Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
unapportioned excess amount the beneficiary 
obtained by fraud; and 
(b) made under regulations made under section 444 
(referred to in section 399(1)); and 
(c) that includes the decision in row 3 of the table in 
section 399(1) 
Decision to recover excess amount from deceased beneficiary’s estate 

The personal representative 
A decision of MSD— 
of a deceased beneficiary 
(a) to recover from the estate of the deceased 
beneficiary an excess amount the beneficiary 
obtained; and 
(b) made under regulations made under section 444 
(referred to in row 4 of the table in section 
399(1)) 
Decision to recover excess amount from deceased spouse’s or partner’s estate 

The personal representative 
A decision of MSD— 
of a beneficiary’s deceased 
(a) to recover from the estate of the beneficiary’s 
spouse or partner 
 
deceased spouse or partner an excess amount 
the beneficiary obtained; and 
(b) made under regulations made under section 444 
(referred to in section 399(1)); and 
(c) that includes the decision in row 5 of the table in 
section 399(1) 
(2)  
For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), a decision is not made in relation to a 
person or an estate by reason only that the decision has an economic or other 
effect on the person or estate. 
 
392 Application must be made within 3 months after 
date of notification or further period allowed 
(1)  
The application for review must be made within— 
(a)  
3 months after the date of receiving notification of the decision; or 
(b)  
a further period the committee has under this section allowed. 
(2)  
An applicant for review is treated as receiving notification of the decision in line 
with regulations made under section 449 if— 
(a)  
a decision is made in respect of which an application for review lies to the 
committee; and 
(b)  
notice of the decision is given to the applicant in a way prescribed by 
those regulations; and 
(c)  
the notice is (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) taken to have 
been received by the applicant as provided by those regulations. 
(3)  
The committee may allow a further period within which the application must be 
made if— 
(a)  
the application is not to be, or has not been, made within that 3-month 
period; and 
(b)  
the committee is asked, before or after the end of that 3-month period, to 
allow a further period; and 
(c)  
the committee considers there is good and sufficient reason for the delay.  
Legislation 

Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Committee 
 
393 Benefits review committee 

(1) 
Every benefits review committee is established, and operates, in accordance with 
Schedule 7. 
(2) 
MSD must refer an application made under section 391 to the appropriate 
benefits review committee. 
(3) 
In determining what benefits review committee is the appropriate benefits review 
committee, MSD must have regard to— 
(a)  
the location of the MSD office in which was made the decision of MSD that 
is the subject of the application; and 
(b)  
the location of the applicant’s usual or last known place of residence; and 
(c)  
how the applicant can conveniently, and at minimum expense, attend in 
person, or otherwise take part in, a review hearing. 
(4)  
The appropriate benefits review committee may be the benefits review committee 
of an MSD office other than the MSD office in which was made the decision of 
MSD that is the subject of the application. 
Example 
The decision of MSD that is the subject of the application was made in the MSD 
office at a location. Afterwards, the applicant moves away from that location. The 
benefits review committee of the MSD office of a location nearer to the applicant’s 
new usual place of residence is appropriate because it enables the applicant 
conveniently, and at minimum expense, to attend in person, or otherwise take 
part in, a review hearing. 
 
Procedure 
394 How to begin, and procedure and powers for, review 
by benefits review committee 
Regulations made under section 451 provide for the following matters: 
(a)  
how to begin, and the procedure on, a review: 
(b)  
the benefits review committee’s power to deal with (for example, confirm, 
vary, revoke, or refer back for reconsideration) the decision reviewed: 
(c)  
related matters specified in that section. 
Schedule 7 Benefits review committees 
1  

Establishment 
The Minister must establish at least 1 benefits review committee for every MSD 
office where decisions or recommendations in relation to the matters to which this 
Act applies are made or were made. 
2  
Membership 
Every benefits review committee must consist of— 
(a)  
a person who is— 
Legislation 

Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
(i)  
appointed by the Minister; and 
(ii)  
to represent on the committee the community’s interests; and 
(b) 2 MSD employees appointed by the chief executive, and— 
(i)  
from time to time; or 
(ii)  
in respect of the particular review. 
3  
Member to represent community’s interests 
(1)  
This clause applies to the member appointed under clause 2(a). 
(2)  
The member holds office on any terms and conditions that— 
(a)  
are not inconsistent with this Act; and 
(b)  
the Minister thinks fit. 
(3)  
The member— 
(a)  
may be paid remuneration at a rate and of a kind determined in 
accordance with the fees framework; and 
(b)  
is entitled to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable travelling and other 
expenses in accordance with the framework. 
(4)  
The member is not, just because of membership of the committee, to be treated 
as employed in the service of the Crown for the purposes of— 
(a) 
the State Sector Act 1988; or 
(b)  
the Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956. 
4  
Secretarial and administrative services 
All secretarial and administrative services required for the committee’s purposes 
must be supplied by MSD. 
5  
Quorum, and committee’s decision, at meetings 
At any meeting of the committee,— 
(a)  
the quorum is the committee’s total membership; and 
(b)  
the decision of any 2 members of the committee is the committee’s 
decision. 
6  
MSD employee cannot act as committee member if that employee was 
involved in decision being reviewed 
An MSD employee cannot act as a member of the committee if that employee 
was involved in the decision being reviewed.  
Social Security Regulations 2018 – 246-247 
Reviews by benefits review committee 
246 Application under section 391 of Act to be made in 
writing 
An application for review under section 391 of the Act must be made in writing. 
Legislation 

Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
247 Procedure on review 
(1)  
The committee must, as soon as practicable after it receives an application for 
review, review the decision. 
(2) 
In reviewing the decision, the committee may, in accordance with the Act, decide 
to confirm, vary, or revoke the decision. 
(3)  
The committee must give written notice of its decision on the review to the 
applicant for review. 
(4)  
The written notice must include the reasons for the decision, and advice that the 
applicant has, under sections 395 to 399 of the Act, a right to appeal to the 
appeal authority against the decision if the committee has, under this regulation, 
confirmed or varied MSD’s decision. 
 
Legislation 
10 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Asking for a Review of Decision 
A review of decision is an opportunity for: 
  the applicant to advise that they disagree with a specific decision made 
  the Ministry to ensure that legislation has been applied correctly, including the 
appropriately exercising of discretion 
An applicant can apply in writing for a Review of Decision (this may be in a letter, an e-
mail or an application form) where they have received verbal or written notification of 
(and do not agree with) a decision which has been made under the provisions listed in 
section 397,398 and 399 of the Social Security Act. This includes decisions made under: 
  any provisions of (or of any regulations made for the purposes of any provisions of) 
Parts 1 to 6 and Schedules 1 to 5; or 
  a special assistance programme approved by the Minister under section 100 or 101; 
or 
  any regulations in force under section 437 (regulations: issue and use of entitlement 
cards);  
  any provisions of, or of regulations made under, the Residential Care and Disability 
Support Services Act 2018; or 
  Part 6 of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, subject to section 175(2) of that Act; or 
  Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001; or 
  the Family Benefits (Home Ownership) Act 1964; 
  decisions under section 398 reciprocity agreements  
  decisions under section 399 to recover an amount from a person or estate 
Note: From 14 April 2014 that certain decisions relating to Housing have been included 
in Section 397 and are therefore reviewable including: 
  the assessment or re-assessment of: 

their eligibility or continued eligibility for social housing 

their housing needs 
  the calculation of the rate of Income Related Rent 
  the establishment and recovery of Income Related Rent debt 
Jurisdiction - can the BRC review the decision? 
The BRC cannot review a decision (i.e. the BRC does not have jurisdiction) if: 
  it is not a decision listed in section 397, 398 or 399 of the Social Security Act  
  the matter has been heard previously by the BRC or by another judicial body 
  the review is outside the three month review period and the committee considers 
there is not a good reason for delay 
What can’t be reviewed under section 397,400 
Some decisions made by the Ministry are not able to be appealed to the Appeal Authority 
(and therefore have no right to be reviewed by a BRC): 
Decisions made on medical grounds 
  any decision made on medical grounds for Supported Living Payment (health 
condition, injury or disability), Jobseeker Support (health condition, injury or 
disability), Child Disability Allowance or Veterans Pension  
Information for the Benefit Review Committee 
11 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
  any decision made (on medical grounds or on grounds relating to capacity to work) 
to require a Jobseeker Support (health condition, injury or disability) client to be 
subject to, or continue to be, subject to part-time work obligations under section 155 
of the Social Security Act 2018  
 
There are separate appeal provisions for decisions made on medical grounds under 
section 411 of the Social Security Act 2018.  
  Information about Medical Appeals can be found in Map and on Doogle: 

MAP Link: http://doogle.ssi.govt.nz/map/income-support/core-
policy/reviews-and-appeals/medical-appeals-board.html 

Doogle Link: 
http://doogle.ssi.govt.nz/resources/helping-clients/procedures-
manuals/work-and-income/health-disability/medical-appeals/ 
Some Employment and Training Assistance decisions including: 
  Flexi-wage self-employment assistance  
  Vocational Services for People with Disabilities (community participation only) 
Some Social Housing decisions including: 
  The decision not to review the clients housing need 
  Any decision made by a housing provider regarding tenancy- related matters such 
as: 

the determination of a market rent rate 

rent arrears 

damages debt or 

whether someone can join into a tenancy agreement 
Service complaints 
A review of decision may include a complaint about the service the applicant received. 
For example,  
A client contacts the Ministry several times, asking her case manager to contact her. The 
case manager does not return these calls so the client contacts the call centre. The next 
appointment is weeks away. 
In this case it is appropriate for the BRC to: 
  comment on the delays and note that this is regrettable 
  ask the Ministry to look into the delays and explain or apologise to the applicant then 
look at the reviewable decision 
Other decisions made by the Ministry that are not reviewable 
  where the application for benefit has lapsed under sections 297,438 of the Social 
Security Act 1964  
  any decision that has been made on defining job seeker activities included in an 
existing Job Seeker Agreement 
  Student Allowance and  Student Loans under the Education Act 1989  
Some decisions have restricted right of review. For example only the decision relating to 
income and asset testing of Residential Care Subsidy applications can be reviewed by a 
BRC. Decisions about eligibility or conditions for funding are not able to be reviewed by a 
BRC. Nor is the decision to grant or decline a Residential Care Subsidy Loan. 
Information for the Benefit Review Committee 
12 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Matter heard previously 
An applicant has the right to have their decision reviewed once. If the decision has 
already been reviewed, it cannot be reviewed again. If the decision has been reviewed 
by a BRC and the applicant has not appealed the decision to the Social Security Appeal 
Authority, suggest to them that they should do this if they are still unhappy with the 
decision. 
It is important to carefully identify the decision being reviewed. What seems like an 
application to review a decision again, may relate to a different decision. For example, 
the first review related to a decision to establish an overpayment, the applicant may 
apply for a further review, about the rate of recovery of the overpayment. 
If an applicant has been prosecuted by the Fraud Investigation Unit in the District Court 
in respect of benefit received during a particular period, and then applies for a review of 
the decision to establish and recover the overpayment, jurisdiction will be an issue. 
In this case, the Benefits Review Committee should seek legal submissions from both 
parties on the issue of jurisdiction and make a determination before considering the 
substantive matter. If the Benefits Review Committee determines that it does not have 
jurisdiction, it should not go on to consider the substantive matter.  
Exceptions  
A second Benefits Review Committee may not be convened to review a decision of an 
original Benefits Review Committee. The only exceptions to this may be if there has been 
a fundamental breach of natural justice or a fundamental error (where the BRC has not 
actually carried out its function to review the decision).   
Examples of Fundamental Breaches of Natural Justice 
  the applicant has not been informed of the Benefits Review Committee hearing; or 
  the applicant has not been given the opportunity to be heard (explain their view of 
the case) this can either be in person or the opportunity to submit material in writing 
and to respond to any material or written submissions the Ministry produces. 
In these situations the Benefits Review Committee would need to either: 
  reconvene - so that the applicant can either attend the hearing or have the 
opportunity to submit material for the same panel to consider; or 
  if a decision has already been made and sent out to both parties a new Benefits 
Review Committee would have to be organised with the first hearing/decision being 
treated as invalid i.e. The decision sent by the first Benefits Review Committee that 
has been found to breach natural justice needs to be disregarded and a completely 
new panel be set to hear the case again.  Contact the Review and Client 
Representatives team or your regional Solicitor for more information if you think a 
natural justice breach has occurred. 
Information for the Benefit Review Committee 
13 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 


 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Out of Time Reviews  
Section 392 of the Social Security Act 2018 gives applicants three months to apply for a 
review of decision from the date they were notified of the decision. The date of 
notification is considered to be the fourth day after the decision was mailed1, unless 
there is evidence to the contrary. Evidence may include the fact that the applicant has 
notified the Ministry that they have moved address (and the Ministry has not noted the 
information) or that the mail is returned “not known at this address”. Each case will need 
to be considered individually. However, the legislation gives the Benefits Review 
Committee the ability to hear reviews out of time if it considers there is good reason for 
the delay in requesting a review. 
The first step is to confirm that the request for review has been received within three 
months of the decision notification. If the request for review has not been received 
within three months the applicant needs to have good reason for the delay in requesting 
a review. The applicant must be given the opportunity to provide reasons for the review 
if they are not included in their ROD. 
If the original request for review does not state these reasons, contact the applicant and 
explain the situation. Give the applicant the opportunity to explain why the review was 
lodged out of time. 
Internal review  
The Internal Review is not completed on the out of time issue itself, but should be 
completed on the substantive issue to establish that the decision under review was 
correct.  
Note: if a review is received more than seven years after the decision was made, the 
Internal Review Template does not need to be completed.  
Report to the BRC 
The Report to the Benefits Review Committee should be completed on the out of time 
issue only. The committee must consider whether there is good reason for the delay. If 
the committee finds there were not good reasons for the delay, the committee should 
decline to hear an application for review; it should not consider the substantive issue. 
The applicant does not have the right of appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority. 
This means it is very important to ask the applicant to attend the Out of Time hearing to 
state their reasons for delay. 
If the committee decides that there are good reasons for the delay, the review then 
proceeds to the substantive hearing. The committee will consider the substantive issue 
at another time after both parties have adequate time to prepare submissions. 
                                         
 
1 (Section 364 of the Social Security Act 2018) 
Information for the Benefit Review Committee 
15 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Process if matter outside the jurisdiction of the Benefits 
Review Committee 

If the application for review is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the BRC, the applicant 
should be notified and given the opportunity to withdraw their application for review. In 
all other cases, the matter should be forwarded directly to the BRC.  If jurisdiction is an 
issue, the BRC will hold a jurisdiction hearing to determine that issue before considering 
the substantive decision. 
If the applicant does not withdraw his or her review of decision, and the Ministry 
considers that it is not reviewable, the case should still be referred to the committee. 
The committee will determine whether it has the jurisdiction to consider the review.   
When a review is to proceed to a BRC on the matter of jurisdiction the case should be 
referred to legal services to assist with the correct preparation of the report to the BRC. 
The applicant should be given the opportunity to explain why the Benefits Review 
Committee can hear the review. The committee will then prepare a report explaining 
whether the review is within its jurisdiction or not. The completed report needs to be 
sent to both the Ministry and the applicant. 
Correction Power 
317 Minister may allow back-dating of benefit where earlier failure to grant it 
based on error (correction power)  

Section 317 of the Social Security Act 1964 gives the CE the ability to retrospectively 
pay a benefit where a client: 
  did not make or complete an application for benefit at an earlier date, and 
  the reason the client did not make or complete an application for benefit was due 
to an error or omission on the part of the Ministry 
However, the ability to make a decision about correction power has been delegated to 
the Deputy Chief Executive, Service Delivery.   
If a payment is declined under the Correction Power by the Deputy Chief Executive, 
Service Delivery the client then has the right to request a review of decision by the 
Benefits Review Committee. 
You should contact Legal services if you have further questions. 
Information for the Benefit Review Committee 
16 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Information for the Benefits Review Committee 
Reports to the Committee 
All reports to the Benefits Review Committee are in a standard format.   
A report to the Benefits Review Committee should contain: 
  Applicant details 
  The decision being reviewed 
  Initial actions and decision made (Summary of Facts) 
  A copy of relevant legislation and policy 
  Internal review actions and decision made 
  The Applicant’s and their representative’s view on the case  
  The Ministry’s view on the case 
  A recommendation from the Ministry 
  List of attachments to the report 
The report and its attachments must be considered along with any information or 
submissions provided by the Applicant and their representative if they have one. 
http://doogle.ssi.govt.nz/business-groups/organisational-integrity/client-advocacy-and-
review/review-and-client-representatives/report-templates/report-templates.html 
New information 
At any stage of the review process, before the Benefits Review Committee makes a 
decision, the Ministry or the Applicant can produce additional information to be 
considered. 
New information provided when the applicant applies for an ROD 
When the applicant applies for a Review of Decision, it is appropriate for the Ministry to 
take another look at the original decision before the case goes to the BRC co-ordinator to 
arrange a Benefits Review Committee. 
The original decision should be revisited. Consider the following: 
 
relevant legislation and policy 
 
the information presented at the time 
 
any new information to hand 
 
reasons for the original decision 
 
the reason the applicant is not happy with the decision and any points raised by 
the client representative 
 
any other appropriate means of assistance available to the applicant 
New information provided prior to the BRC 
If additional information is provided to the Benefits Review Committee/co-ordinator it 
must also be provided to the other party (e.g. the Ministry or applicant). The other party 
must be granted adequate time to consider the additional information prior to the review 
hearing if possible. Alternatively the hearing can be postponed until the other party has 
had sufficient time to consider the additional information. If the hearing is postponed, it 
is important that a new hearing date is arranged at the time. This ensures that there is 
Information for the Benefit Review Committee 
17 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
not an unreasonable delay before the committee meets to consider the decision under 
review. 
New information presented at a BRC 
If new information is presented at the hearing the committee needs to ensure that each 
party has time to consider any new material, and if necessary an adjournment should be 
granted. It is important that both parties are given reasonable opportunity to respond to 
any new information before the committee takes account of that new information in its 
decision making process. 
Depending on the nature of the new information the adjournment could be to later the 
same day or another hearing date. 
Additional information required for the BRC to make a decision 
If the BRC requires further information it may adjourn the hearing, asking for more 
information from the Ministry or the applicant (or both). It may also seek submissions on 
any aspect of the law. If this is the case, both parties will be asked to provide 
submissions. Such an adjournment may occur while you are still present at the hearing 
or after you have left. If it is after you have left the hearing the chairperson will write to 
both the Ministry and the applicant requesting the further information and setting down 
a new date for the panel to reconvene. It is up to the panel to decide whether or not it is 
necessary for the attendance of the applicant and the Ministry at this further reconvened 
meeting.  
New information provided after the BRC hearing but before the 
decision has been sent to the applicant and the Ministry 
If new information relating to the decision is received, the panel needs to consider if the 
information would change the decision. Both parties would need to be given the 
opportunity to respond in writing regarding the new information and the panel would 
need to reconvene and include the outcome in the ‘Report of the BRC’. 
New information provided after the BRC decision has been made 
and the findings have been sent out to the applicant in the ‘Report 
of the BRC’ 
If new information that could change the decision to the advantage of the applicant is 
received, this should be sent to the Service Centre or Unit that made the original 
decision to consider under s304 ‘Review of entitlement and rate payable’ of the SSA.  
If new information is provided which may change the decision of the BRC to the 
detriment of the applicant it must relate to a material change of circumstances as 
opposed to information that could or should have been presented to the BRC at the time 
(see the Supreme Court decision Arbuthnot). If you are unsure about whether the 
information is a change of circumstances or not please refer to your regional solicitor.   
 
If the new information would not change the decision, the applicant needs to be advised 
why this is, and provided with information about appealing to the Social Security Appeal 
Authority. 
Personal Representations 
The applicant may appear in person at the hearing of their review. If the applicant 
chooses to appear then the Ministry should also appear. If the Applicant chooses not to 
appear at the hearing then the Ministry cannot appear. The review is decided “on 
papers” only (i.e. based on the report and attachments only and any written submissions 
from the applicant). 
Information for the Benefit Review Committee 
18 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
However, if the issue is one of credibility and the committee does not consider it can 
properly determine it without seeing the applicant in person, then the committee should 
consider adjourning the hearing and requesting the applicant to attend the hearing. 
The applicant cannot be required to attend the hearing. If the applicant does not attend, 
the case must be decided on the evidence before the BRC. You should not form any 
adverse opinion about the case based on the applicant’s failure or refusal to attend. 
The applicant (or their representative) and the Ministry present their cases to the 
committee. The committee can ask questions to clarify points raised either by the 
written submissions or the personal representations. Both parties should be present 
throughout the hearing to ensure that they can hear and if required respond to any 
additional points raised. 
Resources available to the BRC to help them make their 
decision 
The committee must not directly contact the Ministry’s legal advisors. This is because the 
legal advisors act for the Ministry and it is a conflict of interest for them to provide legal 
advice directly to the committee. If the committee is unsure of a legal point, such as the 
interpreting case law or legislation, then it should ask for legal submissions on that point 
from the applicant and the Ministry. 
If the applicant does not have legal representation a list of possible places to access 
legal advice should be provided from the information available on the client information 
page of the ROD doogle site: 
http://doogle.ssi.govt.nz/resources/helping-staff/procedures-manuals/review-
decisions/client-info.html 
 
Information for the Benefit Review Committee 
19 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Pre Hearing Procedures 
The Panel 
The Benefits Review Committee is made up of three members. Two members are from 
the Ministry of Social Development and the third member is a community representative. 
Clause 5, Schedule 7 of the Social Security Act 2018 sets out that the committee 
contains: 
  Two staff members. The staff members must have had no prior involvement with the 
decision being reviewed. This prohibition includes such activities as signed off 
correspondence. This includes computer-generated letters with electronic signatures 
of Service Centre Managers. 
  A community representative appointed by the Minister to represent community 
interest, and who is resident, or closely associated with the region. 
All three members of the panel must be present at the hearing to make a decision. 
The applicant can object to any member being part of the Benefits Review Committee, 
by stating the reasons for his or her objection. If grounds are found for disqualification, 
or there is an issue with a particular panel member that will interfere with the process of 
natural justice, the panel member objected to should be replaced. The Applicant would 
usually discuss this with the Benefits Review Co-ordinator. 
Disqualification 
No member of the Benefits Review Committee can hear a case if he or she: 
  Has a direct financial or personal interest in the outcome; 
  Has had any prior involvement in the case; 
  Has some personal connection with the applicant, presenter or witness(es) – apart 
from working relationships; 
  Has a personal prejudice for or against a person(s) involved in the case; 
  Has pre-decided the case and come to it with a closed mind. 
If any of these criteria apply the BRC member (including community representatives) 
must disqualify him or herself from the hearing.   
It is important that panel members consider any small contact with the applicant when 
considering disqualification. This may cause difficulties in service centres in isolated 
areas; however it is important that the integrity of the BRC process is maintained. 
Impartiality 
A panel member is not on the committee as a representative of the Service Line, i.e. 
Work and income or StudyLink, but as a representative of the Ministry. The issue of 
independence is very important. The Act requires Ministry members to have had no prior 
involvement in the case.   
 
The Benefits Review Committee is a review body and you must act accordingly. You 
should take great care to ensure that you openly act independently and fairly. 
The role of the Benefits Review Committee is to independently review the Ministry’s 
decision in accordance with the law. 
Procedure 
The Benefits Review Committee can set its own process. The Social Security Act 2018 
does not set out a hearing procedure. The BRC needs to clearly state the process for the 
Pre Hearing Procedures 
20 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
hearing to each person present at the hearing. The process adopted must be fair and 
reasonable. 
Disruption 
The committee can impose reasonable rules for the conduct of the hearing itself. 
If a person is unreasonably disrupting the process of the hearing or behaving 
inappropriately, the chairperson has the ability to request that the person leave the 
hearing. A person behaving in such a manner should initially be warned that they will be 
invited to leave the hearing if such behaviour continues. 
It is suggested that the chairperson may in the instance, where a warning has been 
given, adjourn for 30 minutes to enable the person(s) to regain their composure. If after 
such a break the person continues to be unreasonable, or behave inappropriately the 
chairperson should politely request that the individual leave the hearing. 
The hearing should continue on the material that the BRC has before it. 
Chairperson 
The Social Security Act and Regulations does not specify that there will be a chairperson 
of the Benefits Review Committee. However it is a good practice for the committee to 
identify someone to take the lead in organising the committee, explaining the hearing 
process to all attendees and ensuring the final decision report is completed within the 
appropriate timeframes. 
The chairperson should be chosen only when the three panel members come together.  
A community representative can also be the chairperson.  The chair does not necessarily 
have to write up the report in HIYA, as one of the Ministry panellists can complete this 
task. 
The role of chair is extremely important as they can play a pivotal role in ensuring that a 
fair and impartial decision is reached. The chairperson “sets the scene” for the hearing. A 
checklist has been developed to assist the chairperson with this role, providing a guide 
for introductions and for the process throughout the hearing. 
Some of these instructions are in a “scripted” format. The scripted portions are written in 
italic font. 
Pre-hearing Preparations 
The panel members are sent the report to the BRC and supporting documents before the 
hearing. Panel members may choose to take notes from these documents to remind 
them of questions to ask the applicant or the Ministry presenter.  
It is not appropriate to share these notes with other panel members or attendees before 
the hearing as this may alter the perspective of the other panel members and give a 
perception that the hearing has been predetermined, or that the person is biased.  
This is also the case if the hearing has been adjourned; any notes taken from the earlier 
part of the hearing should not be shared prior to the reconvened hearing. 
However, it is appropriate for notes to be considered and debated as part of the 
deliberations once all the submissions have been made and the panel has retired.  
Requests for taping a hearing 
A client does not need to seek approval before recording a hearing. It is entirely lawful 
for someone to record a conversation to which she or he is a party. The client does not 
need to ask for permission and does not need to inform the Committee of the recording. 
Pre Hearing Procedures 
21 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
However it is an offence if a client records a conversation that she or he is not a part of, 
(e.g. if the client leaves the room and records the conversation of others in the room). 
If a client requests to record the hearing, best practice would be for the Committee to 
record the hearing using a Dictaphone which makes a digital recording, copies can then 
be made to a CD so that the client, the Committee and the Ministry all have the same 
recorded information. The Fraud Investigation Units have these available. The 
Committee should politely ask the client that it is preferable that the client informs the 
Committee that she or he is taping the hearing. However, the Committee does not have 
authority to refuse to let the client record the hearing. 
Members should also be mindful that with modern technology a recording may occur 
without your knowledge.  
Pre Hearing Procedures 
22 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Chairperson’s Guide 
Please note that this guide is based on a process where the Ministry will present their 
case first. This does not restrict the way in which a committee may choose to run their 
hearing in any way. 
 
  Ensure all of the panel are happy with and clear about the chosen process. 
  Collect the applicant and the Ministry presenter from the waiting area. 
  Introduce self and advise that you will be fulfilling the role of chairperson 
  Introduce all of the other panel members as well as anyone else in the room.  
Sometimes panellists, particularly community representatives prefer to introduce 
themselves and should be given this opportunity. 
  Introduction (explain):  
 
This  hearing is convened in terms of Section 391-394 of the Social 
Security Act 2018
Schedule 7 of the Social Security Act 2018 outlines the following requirements of 
this Committee
 
It will be made up of 1 community rep and 2 officers of the Ministry 
 
the community rep will represent the interests of the community 
 
the two officers of the Ministry will be objective and have had no 
involvement in any way with the decision being reviewed 
 
the committee will have a fresh look at the decision and ensure a fair and 
impartial outcome. 
The process is
 
independent and less formal than a court hearing 
 
no one is under oath, but I ask that we all enter into the spirit of the 
hearing so that the committee is able to make a fair and reasonable 
decision 
 
the Ministry will present their case first and then the applicant will have 
an opportunity to explain their reasons for the review 
 
the committee may ask questions of both parties. All questions are to go 
through the chairperson. 
When you begin: 
  invite the Ministry to go first 
  ask whether the papers have been read and understood. If so there will be no need 
for a verbatim account. An overview of the Summary of Facts and the Case for the 
Ministry will probably be sufficient. If the applicant is not familiar with the content it 
is suggested the presenter go into more detail and ensures their material is 
presented in such a way that non-Ministry staff will have a clear understanding 
  invite the applicant to advise the committee why they are reviewing the decision. 
Invite the panel to ask any questions. This is the opportunity to seek clarification of any 
points that have been raised in the hearing. This may be for the benefit of anyone at the 
hearing. 
When concluding: 
  ask: Any closing comments? 
Chairperson’s Guide 
23 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
  advise: No verbal decision will be made. A written decision will be provided as soon 
as practicable, usually within five working days. 
  advise:  If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the committee’s decision you 
have the right of appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority. Further details of 
this will be provided with the written decision. 
Remember: 
Keep it friendly 
It’s the applicant’s review 
Make sure the applicant feels as though they been heard 
Chairperson’s Guide 
24 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
The Hearing 
Setting up 
When you are preparing for a benefit review hearing you will need the following: 
  a suitable room e.g. outside person cannot observe proceedings, sufficient lighting, 
comfortable temperature, access for people with disabilities 
  a table (and chairs) that all panel members, applicant and support people can sit at 
  water and glasses 
  paper, pens & calculator 
  original papers submitted 
  consolidated legislation 
  any relevant policy manuals 
  take any specific cultural or language requirements into consideration. In some cases 
the co-ordinator may have arranged for an interpreter. 
  Laptop so that the Report of the BRC can be completed immediately after the hearing 
and if the legislation included in the report to the BRC is not complete, the panel can 
refer to MAP. NOTE: the panel is not to access the client’s file and do their own 
investigations. If they require further information from the client’s file they are to 
adjourn and request the information via the BRC Co-ordinator. 
Notes 
Panel members are responsible for taking their own notes, although one member may be 
elected to take more in depth notes or minutes. It is inappropriate for someone outside 
of the committee to take notes as they may put their own perspective on what was said. 
At the end of the hearing the note taker must confirm with the wider committee what 
the final decision on each point was. A template has been developed to help you with 
this task. All panel members should initial each page of the notes at the end of the 
hearing in acknowledgement that they are a fair and accurate reflection of what was said 
at the hearing. Refer to Appendix 1: Benefits Review Committee notes. 
Hearing notes may have been made during the hearing by one or all three of the Panel 
members.  Once the BRC has heard the case  each  panel  member  should  give  these 
notes to the report writer to assist them with writing the report, these notes should then 
remain with the Applicants file.   
If a panel member retains the BRC notes until the report is written, these must be kept 
secure.  Once the report has been completed, the notes should be sent to the BRC co-
ordinator with the signed report.(*this can be electronic sign off) 
Presentations 
The Ministry often presents its case first to the BRC. This may be because the Ministry 
has compiled the report to the BRC. It may be a better use of time for the committee to 
summarise their understanding of the facts and issues of the case, and question the 
Ministry on any issues they have. 
The BRC hearing is an informal procedure, not a Court or tribunal. There is no “right” of 
‘cross-examination’. 
The committee sets the process and may wish to clarify the process for questions 
between the applicant and the Ministry. This must comply with the rules of natural 
justice. 
Decisions 
25 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
If an applicant asks questions about the report or aspects of the decision, these should 
be put to the Ministry to answer. In some cases it will be appropriate for the Ministry 
presenter to question the applicant directly or through the committee particularly if the 
applicant at the hearing presents new information.  
If the applicant does not attend the BRC, the review is held on papers only. However, if 
the review involves a situation where the applicant’s evidence would be important, the 
hearing can be adjourned. An example of such a situation could be a decision regarding 
an overpayment, or the recoverable nature of a debt. A final notice of hearing should 
then  be  issued.    It  is  also  desirable  to  try and contact the applicant, preferably by 
telephone as well as by letter, to inform them of this. 
Evidence 
Evidence is anything the committee chooses to listen to or read whilst considering the 
case before it. The mere fact that certain "evidence" is provided to the committee does 
not mean that it is true, relevant or correct in fact or law. It is the Committees role to 
consider the evidence put before it and to make a decision. Some areas to keep in mind 
when considering evidence are: 
Credibility 
People making statements to the committee may be telling the truth, part truths, lies or 
otherwise, and you must decide whether you believe the statements being made are 
true or not. 
There are no strict rules on how to determine that a person is credible, but the following 
factors will be relevant: 
(i) 
prior inconsistent statements 
This is where a person makes one statement to one person and later contradicts 
that statement, particularly where the contradictory statement/s appear to have 
been made to gain monetary benefit. 
(ii) 
multiple explanations 
This is where someone makes a statement and then subsequently varies the 
statement to make it more advantageous for themselves. 
For example, in the Thomas double murder case, the defendant Barlow allegedly made 
three different statements as to whether he had been present at the murder scene or not 
and what he had done upon discovering the bodies. 
(iii) 
lies 
Where a person giving evidence is shown to be telling a lie/s, then that person's 
credibility should be questioned. It is not necessary for the lie/s to be directly 
related to the specific facts giving rise to the issues before the committee. 
Inferences 
An inference is a conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from facts previously 
established. 
Standard of Proof 
The standard of proof at a benefit review committee hearing is the “balance of 
probabilities”. This means that if the committee can say that “we think it more probable 
than not” that something occurred, then that is sufficient to prove a fact. For example if 
the applicant claims that they telephoned Work and Income to ask that their benefit be 
cancelled, then committee need to be satisfied that “it was more probable than not” that 
this occurred. If that is the case, then it has been established as a fact that the applicant 
telephoned Work and Income  
Decisions 
26 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
This differs from the standard of proof in a criminal trial, where evidence needs to be 
established “beyond reasonable doubt”. The “beyond reasonable doubt” test is a much 
higher threshold than the “balance of probabilities” one.” 
Weight of Evidence 
Some evidence will be “stronger” or more compelling than other evidence. This is called 
the “weight” of the evidence and the committee must consider what “weight” should be 
given to any particular piece of evidence. Much of the weighting will turn on the 
individual piece of evidence and the facts of the case, but there are some categories to 
watch for: 
(i) 
Relevance 
You must consider whether the evidence is relevant to the issue being decided. 
The legislative provisions you are dealing with will generally prescribe the 
relevance of evidence. However, it should also be remembered that whilst 
evidence may be irrelevant to the decision to be made, that should not preclude 
you (within the bounds of common-sense and reasonableness) to listening to 
such evidence because: 
– 
the Applicant should be able to put all their concerns to you; and 
– 
whilst evidence might not be relevant to one area of law, it may be 
relevant to finding entitlement under another legislative provision. 
For example, whether an Applicant lives at home is irrelevant to the issue of 
entitlement to an Unemployment Benefit but the “living at home” issue will be 
relevant to whether the Applicant is entitled to Accommodation Supplement. 
(ii) 
Best evidence 
The “best evidence” should be presented to the committee. In other words, the 
committee should see and hear the person with personal knowledge of the facts 
being alleged by that person and not by having an advocate make statements on 
behalf of people who are absent. If the person with the personal knowledge is not 
present, then it is likely that there can be less weight given to any evidence 
presented on behalf of that person in written form. 
However, the committee is unable to summons any witness to give evidence 
before it. For this reason, any appearance by any witness must be with their 
consent. Non-appearance may be for some other justified reason, other than the 
avoidance of cross-examination (e.g. the refusal of an employer to allow an 
employee time off work) and this should be considered by the Committee in 
evaluating the evidence. The fact that the person has a good reason not to give 
evidence does not make their evidence any more or less credible or reliable. 
(iii) 
Documentary evidence 
This is written evidence such as letters, computer records, dockets, declarations 
etc. The mere fact that there is something in writing does not automatically mean 
that the document records a true statement. For instance, where a statement is 
made in the form of an affidavit/declaration, that statement cannot be accepted 
as being true merely because it is in writing or by reason that it is sworn. 
(iv) 
Opinion 
A person's opinion will generally count for little, except where the person giving 
the opinion is an expert. An “expert” is someone with recognised practical 
experience and/or qualifications in a particular field. Obviously, even where 
someone is accepted as being expert in a particular field, which does not mean 
that their evidence should be accepted un-critically, but rather that more weight 
should be accorded to that evidence than evidence given by a non-expert. 
Decisions 
27 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
(v) Corroboration 
This means that the evidence presented about a particular fact is confirmed by 
other evidence from an alternative, un-related source. 
Motive 
People  giving  evidence  will  always  have  a  motive  or  reason  for  giving  that  evidence, 
from a law-abiding citizen performing a civic duty to a person driven by malice against 
the applicant. The motive of the person giving evidence must be acknowledged and 
evaluated when considering the weight and credibility of that evidence. 
Representation 
If the applicant has a lawyer or advocate, or wants support people to attend the BRC, 
the committee should be informed before the hearing by the co-ordinator.  
The committee may, in appropriate and extreme circumstances, decline to allow a 
person (other than the applicant’s legal representative) to attend or appear on behalf of 
an applicant. 
Adjournments 
If there is a request from either party for an adjournment it is usually granted. The panel 
must consider why the adjournment was asked for, and consider whether it is fair and 
reasonable to adjourn. If the adjournment is granted then the Committee needs to 
specify the length of the adjournment and either arrange the time to reconvene at the 
hearing or instruct the co-ordinator to schedule the follow up hearing.   
As a general rule an adjournment shouldn’t be longer than two weeks but each 
adjournment should be based on the need for the adjournment. No case should be 
adjourned without the follow up hearing being scheduled. 
Confidential Information 
A key part of the Ministry's case may rely on information supplied by an informant who 
wishes to remain anonymous. A request for anonymity may, for example, be for fear of 
retribution if the applicant discovers who has provided information to the Ministry. 
If the Ministry wishes the committee to consider any such confidential information, then 
the Ministry cannot withhold that information from the applicant. If the allegations are to 
be used against the applicant, then the applicant has a right to know the statements 
made against them and to have an opportunity to respond to such statements. However, 
this does not necessarily mean the disclosure of the identity of the informant to the 
applicant. If the identity of the informant is withheld, then this may affect the weight of 
the evidence, in its consideration by the committee. The Ministry should ensure all 
identifying factors regarding the informant are removed. 
Examples 
Example 1: 
A Review of Decision is received for an applicant who has been declined a Youth 
Payment. Part of your decision has been based around the contents of the report from a 
Youth Payment Assessment Provider (Barnardos). This report compiled by Barnardos 
contains information and quotes made by the applicant’s parents/caregivers on a 
confidential basis.   
Generally a copy of the full assessment report should be provided to the BRC and the 
applicant so that it is transparent what information was used by the Ministry to make its 
decision. 
There may be some situations where certain, sensitive, information should be withheld 
as disclosure would involve an "unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another 
Decisions 
28 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
individual" under the Privacy Act, or where it is necessary to "protect the privacy of an 
individual" under the Official Information Act.  - You should always seek legal advice on a 
case by case basis if you are unsure if information should be withheld.  
Decisions 
29 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Example 2:   
An investigation into an applicant’s benefit entitlement is completed and part of this 
investigation required witness statements from a third person.  This person may wish to 
remain anonymous but the statement is detailed and helped you make the decision that 
the applicant was not entitled to that particular benefit assistance.  You may use this 
statement but must remove name of the third person or any identifying factors that may 
lead to the identification of that person. 
Note: If in doubt, refer the issue to the Ministry’s Privacy Officer in Legal Services or the 
Informaiton Privacy, Policy and Practice Team for further advice: 
http://doogle.ssi.govt.nz/business-groups/organisational-solutions/legal-services/ 
http://doogle.ssi.govt.nz/business-groups/organisational-solutions/information-services/ 
 
Family Court documents  
The applicant may produce Family Court documents during the BRC hearing. A document 
may be relevant to the decision (Parenting or Protection Orders, for example).   
The BRC cannot require the applicant to produce any Family Court documents. There are 
strict rules about who may see these. If an applicant does produce documents like this, 
the BRC may ask the person questions to confirm that their understanding of the facts is 
the same as the contents the document. If relevant, the BRC could note in its report that 
it looked at the relevant document, but returned it to the applicant.  
It is important that if sensitive information (such as affidavits or Family Group 
Conference notes) is produced in a BRC that this is not retained on the applicant’s file. In 
any cases where you come across Family Court documents, ask the Review and Client 
Representatives team for advice.  They will seek legal advice. 
If you have other court documents you should contact the Review and Client 
Representatives team for advice. 
Decisions 
30 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Decisions 
Making Decisions 
Once the committee is satisfied that it has all relevant information regarding a case it 
can make a decision. The committee makes its decision without the applicant or the 
Ministry present.  
The BRC must only consider the decision being reviewed by the applicant. If the hearing 
raises additional issues of entitlement or ineligibility, these should be referred back to 
the Ministry.  
It is essential that the committee’s decision reflects the relevant law, and is reached in a 
fair way. This means that the committee should: 
  Check to ensure that the applicable legislation from the time of the original 
decision is being applied; 
  Identify and understand the requirements of the legislation. For example, when 
considering whether to recover a debt under Section 362 and Regulation 207 of 
the Act. The committee should understand what each of the specific requirements 
in Regulation 208 of the Act mean. For example, considering whether the debt 
was the result of an error made by the Ministry; 
  Consider all the options available to the applicant. For example, the committee 
should consider not just whether a debt was properly established, but whether 
that debt should be written off, or not recovered under the provisions of the Act; 
  Fully explain the legal constraints and requirements to the applicant and ask the 
applicant to comment on how he or she meets each specific requirement; 
 
Decide whether the applicant meets which if any, of the specific legislative 
provisions you are dealing with. Avoid concentrating on one issue. Look at the 
case in a holistic way; 
  If necessary, use prior Social Security Appeal Authority decisions to assist in 
deciding a particular case. However, such decisions must be considered carefully. 
If they are made solely on an Applicant’s particular circumstances then you must 
compare the Applicant’s circumstances with those of the appellants. 
  Apply rulings by the High Court on interpretation of the law which are binding and 
must be applied to the facts of the particular case where the facts of the case 
cannot be distinguished from the facts in the High Court case. If you are unsure 
of the extent of the application of the ruling to the case you should then consider 
seeking legal submissions. 
  Act within the law. 
It is important that panel members understand the difference between law and policy.  
The function of the BRC primarily is to check the law has been correctly applied.  Policy 
is the Ministry’s interpretation of the law and how it should be applied. 
A Panel Members Decision Checklist has been developed to assist panel in ensuring that 
their decision is documented fully and that all points presented have been considered 
and responded to. A copy of this checklist is  included  with  the  report  of  the  BRC 
template. 
Decisions 
31 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Administrative Law and Natural Justice 
Administrative law can be summarised as requiring you to make a fair decision in a fair 
manner. The application of administrative law principles will be determined by the 
individual circumstances of each case but the principles will apply in all cases. 
When making decisions the committee needs to consider the following: 
Illegality 
This refers to a situation where the decision-maker got the law wrong, usually regarding 
the correct interpretation of the legislation and the scope of their power under that 
legislation. You are acting outside the scope of your powers if you (amongst other 
things): 
(i)  make a decision for a purpose other than that set out in the legislation; 
(ii)  fail to take account of all relevant matters or take account of irrelevant matters; 
(iii) get the facts significantly wrong; 
(iv) strictly apply a pre-set policy without taking account of the individual facts of the 
case (policy should be used as a guideline and not treated as sacrosanct). However, 
complying with a Ministerial Direction made pursuant to s. 7 of the Social Security 
Act 2018 is acceptable in law in this context provided that the decision maker will 
consider stepping outside such a direction in appropriate cases; 
(v)  allow someone else to make the decision for you; 
(vi) make a decision for which you have no proper lawful delegation. 
(vii) make a decision for which you have no lawful power or authority. 
Unreasonableness 
You must not make such an unreasonable decision or come to such an unreasonable 
finding that no reasonable person could have  made  that  finding,  having  regard  to  the 
specific provisions and intention of the Social Security Act 2018 and the facts of the 
case. Unreasonableness will be a question of fact in each case and requires careful 
consideration. 
Unfairness 
This relates to a fair procedure. This obligation to be fair will involve: 
(i)  giving full and fair notice of the issues to be considered, the evidence for and against 
the applicant, and the law that will be taken into account in making the decision; 
(ii) such notice being given in sufficient time to allow the applicant to adequately 
prepare for the hearing (and to ensure they understand any consequences of not 
appearing at the hearing); 
(iii) giving the applicant an opportunity to make representations to the committee and 
for those representations to be to properly considered; 
(iv) avoiding undue and unreasonable delay; 
(v)  giving full and detailed reasons for each point raised (e.g. what was considered and 
what wasn’t) and discussed and how they contributed to the decision made. 
Consistency 
The decision must be consistent with the law, prior statements, representations, policy 
etc, although the outcomes may differ by reason of the individual facts. 
Decisions 
32 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Available Decisions 
The Committee can decide to: 
 
uphold in part (change part of the decision) 
 
uphold 
 
overturn 
the decision of the Ministry. This means to vary in part, (uphold in part) confirm (uphold) 
or revoke (overturn) the decision. The decision of the committee does not have to be 
unanimous. Two out of three panel members must agree for a decision to be made final.   
If further matters are raised that the committee feels need to be addressed outside of 
the decision being reviewed, the committee can make a comment and recommend that 
the Ministry address the issues. The co-ordinator ensures that the recommendations are 
considered by the Ministry and that HIYA is noted with the outcome of these 
considerations. 
If one panel member is disagreeing, or dissenting from the decision then it should be 
recorded that this is the case, and the reasons for their dissention recorded. The 
dissenting decision should follow directly after the majority and should point to the 
factors or issues that contributed to the different conclusion. 
If the decision of the committee is to uphold in part or overturn the original decision 
instructions will be issued to the Ministry on the actions that the Ministry needs to take 
to conclude the review. 
Decisions 
33 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Post Hearing Procedures 
Documenting the decision 
Once the committee has made its decision it is documented in ‘Report of the Benefits 
Review Committee’. The chairperson is responsible for ensuring the report is completed. 
The report sets out the deliberations of the committee, its reasoning and its decisions on 
all points raised.  It requires that: 
 
both the applicant’s case and the Case of the Ministry needs to be fairly 
represented in the final report (The final report should not be restricted to a “cut 
and paste” of the Ministry’s submission) 
 
the final report needs to fully explain to the applicant the reasons for the decision 
made by the committee. “Full reasons” does not mean a short bullet point list. 
The applicant should see that their arguments have been considered and 
addressed, and should understand the basis for the decision the committee 
reached 
 
if the committee makes reference to legislation or policy in the final decision then 
that legislation or policy needs to be referred  to  and  may  also  be  quoted  or 
attached to the report. Where policy is departed from, reasons for this decision 
need to be explained. 
A “notes page” has been developed to assist panel in ensuring that their decision is 
documented fully and that all arguments presented have been considered and responded 
to. Refer Appendix 1: BRC Hearing Notes. 
Report of the BRC QA and Signoff 
When the report is sent to the other panel members for signoff the panel members are 
responsible for checking the report. If a panel member believes an area has not been 
sufficiently covered in the report they do not sign it off until the appropriate 
amendments have been made. 
All three members of the committee sign the final report and initial each page as being a 
fair representation of the events of the hearing and the decision made. If one panel 
member disagrees with the decision it is important that this, and the reasons for the 
dissention, is recorded. The report is then given to the applicant and a copy to the 
Ministry. 
If the report to the BRC contains errors then the BRC needs to ensure that these are 
corrected, these errors will automatically transfer into the report of the BRC if you copy 
and paste from the report to the BRC 
The exception being the case for the Ministry, this is Ministry’s case and should the panel 
notice grammatical errors then they need to ensure those are corrected but should the 
wrong law and policy be applied to the facts of the case the BRC should make comments 
about this in their findings.  All three panel members are responsible for the content of 
the report, if this contains errors then this reflects on the Panel.  
The final report is sent to the applicant with a covering letter. If the decision is not in the 
applicant’s favour, or only partially favourable, he or she is informed of the right to 
appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority. 
The completed and signed report must be sent to the applicant within five days of the 
conclusion of the hearing. 
Any follow up required by the Ministry should be actioned within 24 hours of notification 
of the decision. The co-ordinator ensures that any recommendations made by the panel 
are considered by the Ministry and HIYA noted with the Ministry’s response.  
 
Post Hearing Procedures 
34  
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Appendix 1: Benefits Review Committee Notes 
 
BRC Hearing Notes 
Applicant’s 
 SWN: 
 
Name: 
Committee:  
Chairperson  
 
 
 
 
  Panellist 
 
 
 
 
 
  Panellist 
 
 
 
 
 
Date:  
 
 
Attendees for the Applicant: 
 
Attendees for the Ministry: 
 
1. Key Legislation: 
 
 
 
2. Key Facts: 

  Applicant 
 
 
 
  Ministry 
 
 
 
3. Feedback to Site(if applicable
): 
 
 
 
4. Notes: 

 
Upheld 
Upheld in Part 
Overturned 
Allowed 
Declined 
5. Attached to Report: 
 
 
Appendix 1: Benefit Review Committee Notes 
35 
Version 9 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Appendix 2: Glossary of terms 
Legislation:  
  Any law passed by parliament. This is called an Act or statute  
  Any law made by someone with statutory authority – such as Regulations, 
Ministerial Directions and Welfare Programmes. 
Note: An Act before it is passed by Parliament is called a Bill. 
Policy: Policy has two parts: 
1.  Policy made by governments. In the Ministry we call this sector policy. 
Governments will introduce legislation to give effect to their policies in law. 
2.  Policy made after a law is passed, which provides guidance to employees of a 
government department on how to apply the law. In the Ministry we call this 
operational policy. This sort of policy is only a particular government 
department’s view of how the law should be applied. It does not have legal force 
and should not be applied if it is inconsistent with the law. 
As a case manager and as a BRC panel member you will be dealing with operational 
policy. 
MAP: stands for Manuals and Procedures. MAP contains the Ministry’s policies on how to 
apply legislation – primarily the Social Security Act 2018 
Judiciary: The branch of the state that decides disputes between parties independently 
and in accordance with the law - i.e. Judges and tribunal members. 
Tribunal: An independent body, similar to a Court, which has a judicial function and is 
established by legislation to decide disputes about a specific subject matter.  For 
example, the disputes Tribunal or the Social Security Appeal Authority. Some tribunals 
such as the Waitangi Tribunal have a more investigatory and advisory function . 
Social Security Appeal Authority (SSAA): The SSAA is an independent tribunal 
established under section 397,400 of the Social Security Act to decide appeals on benefit 
entitlement. The Ministry of Justice administers the SSAA.  Members are appointed by 
the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister.  
Review Body: The BRC is an example of a review body. It is a review body established 
by legislation but is internal to the Ministry of Social Development. The characteristics of 
a review body include its members being internally provided, or, in the case of the 
Community Representative, appointed by the Minister and being administratively 
managed internally by the Ministry.  
It is not a tribunal-type body, as it is not characterised by independent tenure, the right 
of appeal for both parties, the ability to compel evidence, to order costs or to take any 
necessary steps to require its decision to be implemented. 
Jurisdiction: The authority of a body to decide a particular issue. The sorts of disputes 
that the Social Security Appeal Authority may consider are set out in section 397, 400 of 
the Act. 
If a dispute has arisen in another country, or the dispute may have already been decided 
by another judicial body, there could be issues about jurisdiction. 
Natural Justice: Refer page 1 of Panel members’ information pack 
Substantive decision: The substantive decision is the original decision that was made 
by the Ministry.  
Version 9 
36 
 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Appendix 3: Frequently asked questions 
Q. Does the Applicant need to attend an Out of Time hearing? 
A. Yes, it’s important the Applicant attends to present their case regarding why it has 
taken more than three months to apply for the review of decision.  However the BRC 
cannot require the applicant to attend, and if he or she does not, must make a decision 
on the papers. 
Q. The BRC is considering the hearing on the papers when the applicant arrives 
and has a valid reason for their lateness. What do we do? 
A. If you are able to get the Ministry’s presenter to come back and present their case 
then there isn’t any reason why the case can’t proceed, if the Ministry’s presenter is 
unable to present then adjourn to another day to allow both parties state their case.  
Q. The Panel adjourns because it wants additional information, which 
letterhead does it use? 
A. Ministry letter head, the Applicant and the Ministry both get a copy of this letter. 
Q. The BRC overturned the Ministry decision, are we still required to give the 
applicant appeal rights? 
A. Yes, this is a legal requirement.  
Q. The applicant’s advocate has read the findings, decided they are unclear, and 
wants the BRC to reconsider the decision as he or she is concerned there may 
be a breach of Natural Justice.  What do we do? 
A.  depending  on  what  the  findings  actually  say  it  may  be  they  need  to  re-convene  to 
address all the issues raised by both parties. It’s advised you discuss this on a case by 
case basis with the RoD team.     
Q. The Applicant has a representative attending and he/she quotes Scoble and 
Taylor.  How do we go about getting information on these cases and work out if 
they are relevant? 
A. If case law is introduced at the hearing that the panel is not familiar with the panel 
should adjourn and ask for the Ministry presenter to get some information about the 
quoted case. Refer to obtaining legal advice for the BRC on page 14 
Q. The BRC has decided that it doesn’t have jurisdiction to consider the review 
of decision.  Do we still need a hearing? Do we invite the applicant? And what 
do we have to give the Applicant for appeal rights? 
A. Yes a hearing is required, the BRC would decided based on the circumstances and the 
legislation if the decision is reviewable or not.  A BRC’s jurisdiction to review decisions is 
set out in sections 391 and 397,400 of the Act. 
 
The Social Security Appeal Authority may only consider appeals that have been 
confirmed or varied by a BRC.     
Q. There has been significant service delays getting the decision reviewed, is 
the BRC able to just overturn the decision? 
A. No.  The BRC must apply the law and policy to the facts of the applicant’s case before 
overturning the Ministry’s decision. The BRC could mention and apologise for the delay. 
Version 9 
37 
 
26 November 2018 

 
Panel Members Information Pack 
Q. The BRC agree with the decision that the Ministry has made to decline 
monetary assistance for food but don’t agree with the reason used to decline 
the assistance – is this partially overturned? 
A. No, you agree with the decision made just not the reason the Ministry used, in this 
instance you disagree with the reason for decline, not the decline itself. 
Version 9 
38 
 
26 November 2018