Paula Bennett's battle with solo mother continues

17 Dec 2011 10:54a.m.

John Schonknecht wrote:

Well done to Paula Bennett! After gratifying herself at the 'trough'-having been a beneficiary herself and having seen the error of her ways, she can now stamp out other people using the 'system' she once took advantage of. I would recommend her read George Orwells book 'Animal Farm'. She may even recognise herself in the book - although I doubt it as there are 'none so blind as those who will not see'.

16 Dec 2011 10:48p.m.

Nikita wrote:

Paula bennett and national are most definatley benefit haters. where she gets the idea she has the right to publish private information (admit it we all know its private) is beyond me. and to those who reackon she should be able to because they want to know where there tax goes are wrong, no one knows exactly where their tax goes to, theres so many other things besides benefits that tax pays for, those on benefits also so pay tax so it more or less goes in a big circle, sure there are those ruining it for the rest who dont need the so called "hand outs" but for those who do its tough living, if you are a solo mother on a benefit with 2 children and your rent is say $280 pw, you recieve around $400, now take away your power, your grocery bill and other expenses and your left with maybe $10, i know the majority of people on benefits would rather have jobs so they dont have to be looked at as another statistic or another "dole bludger" but without jobs how is this achievable?? Paula is only going to make living for these people harder, sure a job is a job and if it pays more than a benefit its better than that, but who the hell wants to be stuck in a dead end job that the government has more or less forced you to take because they make you feel like scum every time you ask for help. i really think before a cashed up person with a job they enjoy judges someone for being on a benefit that they actually walk in the shoes of someone in such a situation, at the end of the day people on the benefit are still providing a roof over their childrens heads and food on the table etc etc...beats a child living in poverty...

19 Nov 2011 06:31p.m.

Jesse wrote:

There are enough leftists at my university with big mouths who think that they are shouting out against some kind of injustice that the beneficiaries face. Welfare is for people who cannot find employment. The only thing it has to do with the underprivileged class (a nauseatingly collectivist term that the left LOVE to use) is that they are the ones who take the most advantage of it. This is fine if they require it, but unlike in the early 2000s, the government can't afford to dish out the same amount of help. The only reason we could afford it then is because of Helen Clarks iron ambition towards the welfare project. Under Paula, unemployment has declined. It's darted up slightly just recently, but for the most part it has been stabilized. That is a feat and, unlike the stubborn left, I would like to see more of it. You can't just yell "think of the children!" like Sue Bradford, and avoid finding proper solutions. The sickness benefit has become a joke by the way. Half the people in it are simply NOT sick. Don't call me a redneck, it's simply true. People say that Paula is screwing people over, the dole bludgers abusing a benefit meant for people who are genuinely wheelchair bound and struggling IS screwing people over.

14 Nov 2011 05:16p.m.

Clarke wrote:

So Eddie... the cripples, the disabled people.. those that doctors have confirmed wont be able to work? they get to be treated like rubbish because they made a lifestyle choice to be that way?. Your arguments always make you sound ten and uneducated. The benefit system was never attractive under labour... they never gave beneficiaries back the income they lost under shipley... you paint a pictur that just doesnt exist because like the tiny little impotent man that you are.. you have nothing else but misrepresentations? to deflect from Paula Bennetts illegal actions? well if the Human Rights Commssioner investigates and files then Paula Bennett will have to stand down from Parliament anyway.

14 Nov 2011 09:28a.m.

eddie wrote:

@Clarke
"One sure thing the National Government do not like beneficiaries", noooo they make it so the benefit is unattarctive and not a lifestyle choice Clarke, labour on the other hand want to give more and more from working NZ's taxes to them, tis why national on over 50% support and Labour less than 30%...take off your holier than thou attitude and see the whole picture, labour were voted out for taxing and taxing middle NZ to pay for the lazy and indolent, seems history DOES repeat eh? and labour are doomed with it again, they never learn...30% IS their core vote and always will vote for them, they haven't picked anyone else up in 3yrs! infact the Greens have prospered at their demise.

14 Nov 2011 07:47a.m.

Penny wrote:

OK Steve and others who agree with this, we'll play your game, full disclosure of benefits and in return full disclosure of all people earnings for public scrutiny, then we can see whose declaring what and who is not. Barta is taxable although alot of people don't know, full disclosure from everyone. People on benefits are not all divorced people either, they are people who have been beaten by men possibly like you Steve, they are married women whose husbands have died, do you expected them to lie down and die to, they are men whose wifes have died. People judge a small percentage and lump the lot in that catorgory. The point is Paula Bennett is in a job which requires them 'LEGALLY' not to give out any personal information they may have especially to the whole of NZ, perhaps next Paula Bennett may release information she was not entitled to about how someone came to be on a benefit because of a brutal raping, where does this disclosure stop. Perhaps the local priest should tell all. Who can we trust?? If people let Paula Bennett having release information go, this will set a PRESIDENCE for the future and it wont stop there, no-one will have any privacy.

13 Nov 2011 11:00p.m.

Striper wrote:

It boils down to two points of view. Either you believe a benefit is a right (in which case details can be confidential), or a privilege (needs to be earned and details are public). I'm of the latter persuasion - anyone showing themselves keen to rejoin the taxpayer community should be helped. However, public servant salaries are public, so if it's OK to tell me Paula Bennett's income it's equally valid that beneficiary incomes are also made public.

13 Nov 2011 07:09p.m.

Clarke wrote:

@Steve Grow up... thousands of state employees are paid with tax payer funds.. that doesnt mean they no longer have any right to privacy. If your argument is correct.. John Key cant block the release of the tape recording of Him and John Banks having Tea... because he is paid with state funds and has no right to privacy. Your argument is the most ridiculous I have ever heard. Paula Bennett started a hate campaign using her position as Minister of Social Development... thats abysmal behaviour and Ms Bennett should resign or be pushed out of politics completely.. the last thing we need in power is a hate monger like Paula Bennett.

13 Nov 2011 09:41a.m.

Penny wrote:

As far as I am concerned Paula Bennet should lose her job over giving out information she had no right to release. When I worked for the Inland Revenue, and other Government Departments I signed a declaration which stated that you must not disclose any information about peoples personal information or situations. Paula Bennet has breached this so should lose her job. Benefits are not massive, try surviving on one, I have in the past, and it is no picnic, you become a nervous wreck because of how the public judge people in those situations. In my experience the system is designed to push the poor person down, and the rich who get away with criminal acts, because they have the money to pay their way out of it. Paula Bennett release details of personal information on the money people were getting on the benefit, John Key seems to think that is ok, so what they are saying is that beneficiaries have no right to privacy. Get rid of Paula Bennett, Get rid of Paula Bennett. One sure thing the National Government do not like beneficiaries, get wise NZ, they never have. Perhaps they should be into building up the broken people on benefits so they can once again re-enter the workforce.

13 Nov 2011 08:57a.m.

Steve wrote:

Why shouldn't the NZ public know where its tax dollars are going? MS Fullers benefit money is exactly that, the NZ Tax payers. Everyone jumps up and down about full disclosure of the government and how money is spent, but you don't want to know how much people are getting on the benefit, because you think that should be private? And now your happy she's going to try and get $15k more from your hard work? If every tax dollar has to be accounted for, that means EVERY TAX DOLLAR. Stop being so hypocritical because you don't want the public to know your getting $50k a year on the benefit, while people are earning less by working two jobs to make ends meet, and then blame the government.