Paula Bennett's Income
Labour also said Bennett should release details of her time on the DPB as a struggling solo mother. Welfare spokeswoman Annette King said Bennett had created a new standard and should abide by it.
"She was on the DBP on and off for five years. She took the training incentive allowance. Perhaps she would like to release those details publicly, if that is the new standard," King said.
Who cares what Bennett was on as a solo mother? David Farrar is a statistical wonk, he can probably do the research and work it out based on her circumstances. That's all now in her past.
We all know what she's on now as a Cabinet Minister don't we? Solo Mums all across New Zealand can sit on the couch and bitch to themselves about her salary to their hearts content.
As we know what Policemen and teachers earn depending on their scale grade. CEO's have their salaries disclosed in Annual reports so we know what upper-earning New Zealanders are earning. We also have rough estimates of how much wealth really rich people have compiled by the NBR. We know what the Black Caps earn. We know what All Blacks earn. We know what Company Directors earn.
All these people have productive employment (to a greater or lesser extent) and their privacy is breached with this information being made public.
Beneficiaries do not have the same productive employment. Those above pay for their lifestyles and yet to not have the same privacy in their lifestyle to keep their pay a secret.
What's wrong with this picture?
We all know what she's on now as a Cabinet Minister don't we? Solo Mums all across New Zealand can sit on the couch and bitch to themselves about her salary to their hearts content.
As we know what Policemen and teachers earn depending on their scale grade. CEO's have their salaries disclosed in Annual reports so we know what upper-earning New Zealanders are earning. We also have rough estimates of how much wealth really rich people have compiled by the NBR. We know what the Black Caps earn. We know what All Blacks earn. We know what Company Directors earn.
All these people have productive employment (to a greater or lesser extent) and their privacy is breached with this information being made public.
Beneficiaries do not have the same productive employment. Those above pay for their lifestyles and yet to not have the same privacy in their lifestyle to keep their pay a secret.
What's wrong with this picture?
posted by Cactus Kate at 10:58 AM
12 Comments:
Hmmm...If Labour was still in power then no doubt Ruth Dyson as Minister of Social Development would have been much more cunning. She would have leaked the info to her stoolies over at The(sub)Standard to publish under their "cone of silence". Much smarter, why didn't Paula think of using the Orca ?
Agreed.
Memo to Minister: next time use the orca or the penguin.
It's absolutely relevant what Bennett's income was on when under the same circumstances as the two women, in other words what level of subsidy she she received on top of her base benefit to study.
Anything else is irrelevant, this smells really bad of a women who on the back of the taxpayer got her education whilst on the DPB & now wants to change the rules. In itself ok, but you've got to be really clear if you want to play that game & I don't see that clarity from Bennett ( a light weight IMHO ).
Get the details of the time she was on a benefit and work it out yourself. The Stranded will be doing it right now.
I doubt it will be earth shattering.
Unlike the 2 ladies who smell a great deal like a Neelam Choudary to me.
shit, i am legally required to tell my clients what i will earn before i do any work for them. if i don;t i can be fined.
at least i am earning my money, not being given it by others. they need to harden up.
"Unlike the 2 ladies who smell a great deal like a Neelam Choudary to me."
Thumbs up. Reading Fullers post over at the Trademe forums ( a disturbingly fetid swamp of dole bludgers ) it looks rather like she is being coached by one of Labours spin-meisters.
I think asking for Bennett's DPB income is just grandstanding by Labour. What I can't understand is that Labour have not worked out that the people who are very pissed off by this are largley from their constituency.
Bennett, I suspect has achieved a notable gain in National party support ( wait for the next poll ). Bennett might be forced to apologise by the Privacy Commission but if that happens she will pay a very small price ( Hell Winston are you still asleep ). She has also today had a chat with Ms Johnstone and I gather that a meeting in Invercargil will occur next week. I made a comment yesterday on your blog she was wrong to go public I stand by that but the reality is she was right and I am wrong.
You comment that it smells of Neelam Choundary yes I agree and I think that Ms Fuller is the person that needs looked at Charles Chauvel you are an idiot supporting and facilitating this, your constituency is working hard to achive the income Fuller has.
Ms Johnstone today fronted up she is deserving of some admiration
I'm afraid you've hit on exactly the point here. Bennett would have been entirely justified in releasing general (anonymous) figures about what beneficiaries in general earn, even bands of payment you might expect similar categories of individual to receive etc.
As a privacy lawyer I'm sure that, had she bothered to consult her officials or taken any professional advice, this is what she would have been advised to do.
The fact that she didn't do this, and instead released the actual figures relating to the individuals in question, is why there is a genuine legal issue (as well as an ethical issue) about Bennett's conduct.
There would have been no substantive difference to the policy debate had she used anonymous figures. She could have made exactly the same point.
Whatever Paula was given as benefits, it was certainly an investment that paid off for society. Unlike the money paid to one of the ladies (yes, a capital L would be an insult to those who deserve it) in question to establish a business, that 'collapsed' when she found she was again pregnant and leaving her with personal assets of a car or two by all accounts!
Well, whatever we might think of her 'gravitas', the Minister at least seems to have done something with the training and related allowances SHE received... rather than piss it away on a 'cleaning company'... and we all know that's a nice way of describing, "I'm going to go clean people's houses" followed by failure.
If I went on a teacher’s placement tomorrow I would have to find 100 a week for my two toddlers out of my benefit to cover childcare. That is what I have after bills for food. Food or childcare?
Yes I would get childcare sub but this is what I would have to find after that.
We do get student allowance, and the 1000 for course related costs but we are not entitled to the 10000 living allowance that other people get.
Didn't ask for my partner to run off after 10yrs nor did I ask for my employers to make cuts at my job that I had before I had children, who did said I could come back anytime, at the time anyway.
I now look after kids in my own home wed to fri (Through a home day care centre so NO not under the table) My own children in care on a tues so I can study and saving franticly so that I can afford to pay childcare next year when it comes time for teacher placements again.
I am not giving up, just have to study part time so I can work and study and raise my children. It will take me 6 years doing this part time but that is what I now have to do.
I could have been out working in 3.
I'm studying extramurally.
I still receive a part benefit (I do declare my earnings) so I suppose I'm a bludger in all your eyes.
I'm up at 1.30 studying as I'm a loser on a benefit?
Yes I'm a bludger, a loser and a failure with a B avg so far.
Stuff you NZ and the others on this blog.
If was only on the benefit and I went on a teacher’s placement tomorrow I would have to find 100 a week for my two toddlers out of my benefit to cover childcare. That is what I have after bills for food. Food or childcare?
Yes I would get childcare sub but this is what I would have to find after that.
We do get student allowance, and the 1000 for course related costs but we are not entitled to the 10000 living allowance that other people get.
Didn't ask for my partner to run off after 10yrs nor did I ask for my employers to make cuts at my job that I had before I had children, who did said I could come back anytime, at the time anyway.
I now look after kids in my own home wed to fri (Through a home day care centre so NO not under the table) My own children in care on a tues so I can study and saving franticly so that I can afford to pay childcare next year when it comes time for teacher placements again.
I am not giving up, just have to study part time so I can work and study and raise my children. It will take me 6 years doing this part time but that is what I now have to do.
I could have been out working in 3.
I'm studying extramurally.
I still receive a part benefit (I do declare my earnings) so I suppose I'm a bludger in all your eyes.
I'm up at 1.30 studying as I'm a loser on a benefit?
Yes I'm a bludger, a loser and a failure with a B avg so far.
Stuff you NZ and the others on this blog.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home