Details of state benefits received by two solo mothers have been made public by the Government after the pair criticised cutbacks to a training allowance.Click through for the rest.
Staff from Social Development Minister Paula Bennett's office gave the Herald a tally of each woman's weekly income from the state - including benefits and other allowances - after the women spoke out in the Herald on Sunday and Labour used their stories in Parliament last week.
The details were handed over without the knowledge of the mothers, Jennifer Johnston and Natasha Fuller.
Ms Bennett said she had a right to release information on individuals if they left out relevant details when publicising their situations.
"If someone is deciding they're happy to use their case to speak about or against something we are doing, I think it's fair the full story be told."
Ms Fuller said she did not believe she had left out any relevant information and was "astonished" her details could be released without either her knowledge or permission.
Ms Johnston said she was "flabbergasted" but said it would not put her off speaking out about cutting the training incentive allowance.
To me this looks like intimidation pure and simple - criticise the government and we'll put information in the media that'll make you look bad. You don't have to be lily white to have a genuine beef with the government over something. Yet that's the implication of this kind of response, as Neelima Choudary found out too.
How about the Minister for Social Development concentrates her efforts instead on explaining why the Training Incentive Allowance was cut and exactly what her Government plans to do to support solo parents to provide for their families?
20 comments:
doesn't the privacy act have any protections against this kind of intimidation?
the priavcy act should protect you but because u receive a benefit then your not covered because you get hand outs from the government. So from Paula Bennetts perspective if you wanna complain against this government, nah you have no chance of security, your details are blasted into the world of multi media.
wow - what a bitch!
So let me guess this right, this person had a blog moaning about the treatment that social welfare gave them, but failed to mentioned on their blog that they were getting 700 dollars a week.
A Blogger I'm afraid you are missing the point. You might want to check out Idiot/Savant's excellent posts on the abuse of power at his blog:
http://norightturn.blogspot.com (scroll down a bit)
So let me guess this right,
A person failed to mention that she received 700 a week on the DPB?
What you have failed to mention is she appears to have 3 children- I hope she's getting about 700 a week so she can feed and house them.
Im not sure about feeding them, but she can house them, judging by her two story lockwood home they showed on tv tonight.
I also wished I had an expensive laptop like that.
Julie, you've nailed this one: nothing to do with entitlements, everything to do with the release of private information without consent to score political points, without bothering to even check if such was allowed.
L
I remember many occasions when Helen Clark used to leak nasty little rumours about detractors to the press gallery. I'm not justifying what Paula did - but this isn't new and Helen was rather good at dropping hints to the media in her time.
What about the fathers? Why aren't they contributing to their children?
The women should have been up front, but moreso, the issue is why are people like this in the welfare trap.
pete, the women are on the DPB so any contributions the father of the children make would go to the state to cover the costs of the DPB. you have no knowledge of what the fathers may or may not be paying, so why even raise the question. this issue has nothing to do with the children, it's about a training incentive allowance to help get these women off the benefit, which has now been scrapped.
The woman and beneficiary bashing on talkback and blogs is so vile, I can't believe this is New Zealand.
I feel like I've been whisked over to redneck America.
anon, i see you've been trolling on several threads here. i'm deleting your comment here because you've made an allegation of fraud without providing proof.
it's not "the truth" until you provide evidence. besides which, i'm not interested in your vilification of this woman. if you have some point to make about the cutting of the training incentive allowance or the breach of the privacy act by the minister, feel free to make it (in a respectful manner).
anon, it seems you can't understand english. you will not be putting up allegations of fraud on this blog without providing evidence. neither will you lie about putting links in comments when you put none. any further posts by you of this nature will be deleted without trace.
any comments with abusive language will also be deleted. perhaps you haven't read our comments policy. i suggest you do so now.
I put in links. You just have to reverse the block you did on my comment and it will pop up.
It's your word against mine. I am not going to call you a liar but it doesn't look good as you have deleted the evidence. Sounds remarkably like Helens little "Paintergate".
it's very simple anon. if you have the links, put them up again for us all to see. and not just to a general news website but to a specific article that provides evidence and not just more allegations.
but i see that you still don't want to engage with the actual issue. hon paula bennett has cut an allowance that would have helped these women and many others off the benefit. she has punished them for speaking out about it by revealing a part of their private information calculated to do them the worst possible damage. i'm surprised that you show no interest in any of that.
Post a Comment