Bruiser Bennett and the beneficiaries
Bruiser Bennett is living up to her moniker again.
Paula's never been one to avoid a stoush, happy to roll up her sleeves to either stop fights - or sometimes to start them - or just join in the melee.
She's provoked outrage this morning for shopping details of the benefits received by two solo mums who have been critical of the Government's decision to can the training assistance allowance to beneficiaries.
The women concerned, one Jennifer Johnston and a Natasha Fuller, are certainly no shrinking violets. They gave their story to their local newspaper, claiming that the end of the special extra benefit for those on the DPB to get into tertiary study would curtail their hopes of doing nursing and early childhood education degrees next year.
They even used their Facebook pages to agitate for the Government to change its mind.
All fair enough, of course, this is a free country, and you can say what you like within the bounds of the law.
But Bennett's office has been getting increasingly frustrated that the coverage the women have been getting in the media hasn't included exactly what the pair already receive courtesy of the taxpayer.
Now, the usual way of dealing with this is to quietly slip the details out to a friendly journalist, or suggest someone ask a question that would reveal the information. Let's be clear here that Labour did this all the time. It's standard practice.
But Bennett went the more open route. She had her staff release the information openly. So for the record, Fuller gets $715 after tax a week from the Government, and Johnston $554. Both are receiving an allowance for pre-degree study.
Fuller also got $9560 under an enterprise allowance to start a cleaning business, which failed because of illness.
The point of releasing the women's details was to show that they're already getting pretty hefty benefits - probably more than many working families.
I can understand Bennett's frustration. She's getting boxed about the ears by a couple who clearly haven't been telling the full story about their personal situations.
HOWEVER. Ministers have to be extremely careful about using the power of their office to come down on pesky complainants like a tonne of bricks. Bennett has extraordinary access to beneficiaries' private lives through the Ministry of Social Development.
The concern with something like this is that it sends the message that if you criticise the Government, it will hit you back 10 times as hard. And while I think actually that this information WAS relevant in this case, I'm not sure it was up to the minister's office to release it.
The other question is where the matter stops. What say a minister decided to release the tax return details of a complainant? Or their shonky work history? Or some criminal conviction that had been long buried? Let's face it, it's not a fair fight.
Bennett has a personal involvement in all of this, of course. She herself was a domestic purposes beneficiary. She availed herself of the very training allowance she has now cut, to help drag herself up by her bootstraps.
In doing so, Bennett has become the poster girl for this Government, the living proof that you can rise from a lowly DBP beneficiary to a minister of the Crown in charge of the entire multibillion-dollar portfolio.
It's a compelling story, and one that the minister needs to be careful she doesn't tarnish too much. On the one hand, it was brave to cut the very allowance she herself relied upon. You could argue that to protect it just to save political embarrassment would have been the easy option.
The argument is that the Government simply doesn't have the money to pay all these benefits any longer, and that's probably fair enough. I think it was probably an argument the Government was winning, actually. Most Kiwis understand times are very tough.
There will always be flashpoints, however, and obviously this training allowance is one. The axing of adult community education courses is another.
But sometimes as a government you've just got to grit your teeth and wear the criticism. By refusing to turn the other cheek, Bennett has given the Opposition a new stick with which to beat National.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Good on you Ms Bennett! There are many people that take on tertiary education that live on far less. There are many families in New Zealand whose weekly wage is less than these women are receiving. They should be pleased that they live in a country where a benefit is available. I worked in tertiary education for 10 years and was horrified at some students who received the DPB, had their course fees paid for them, received an allowance and didn't bother turning up for class. Their Case Manager, when informed, couldn't care less. My message to these women, how about focusing on getting your qualifications and off the benefit instead of how to bleed more and more out of the hard working taxpayer.
I pretty much agree with your view here. Personally I like Bennets attitude, but agree its a touchy subject.
Re. you point about where the matter stops. Thing is, this money comes from the public (taxpayers). Which in my opinion is different to privately earned income.
I can't believe that woman gets $46k a year (before tax) and thinks she deserves more!
Hefty benefits....perhaps, yes, at face value. But when considered that a good proportion of them will be IRD family assitance, and accomodation allowance - both of which are available to all low income families, they're not so hefty. Add to this that the DPB is the only benefit directly offset by child support income (paid by the absent parent to IRD) then the amount 'from the government' gets smaller. Bennett knows this, but chose to use whole figures to inflame the anti-solo mother brigade. Sad.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Whether Ms Johnston and Ms Fuller are getting $1 or $1,000,000 from the state is beside the point. Somebody else needed to destroy their credibility.
They'll be screaming "Fascist" in question time today. You can't use Government powers like that, no matter how tempting it might be.
Bennett is no Mugabe, but boy it does make her look like him.
Wow, $715 per week AFTER tax! I did it the old fashioned way and got a student loan. I got a degree, earn less then this lady - and she hasn't even got a degree yet! It's not like I worke some dodgy job - I work in an office and my salary places me confortable in the "average income" bracket. I've got $20,000 left to pay on my loan and a mortage to deal with. I'm no solo-parent, but do have a 6 month old baby and we are a single-income family.
I can't help but feel ripped-off.
This is just wrong in my opinion. Government has such a huge potential power to dish out information on all of us that to do so just because we criticise government, is a total abuse of that power. And besides, further details about the costs of accomodation, the number of children the women have and any special costs these women have as a result of such things as children with medical problems etc would be necessary for the basic income information to be of any real use when we the public are supposedly trying to determine whether what the women are saying is correct or not. But thats now really the point imo, the real point being that if breaching the privacy of New Zealanders is now somehow "relevant" in order for a political party to justify its policy, then hell, lets just cut to the chase, bring in the tanks, sit Paula in the drivers seat and let her run us over.....
The government gives them nothing.
You, me and other taxpayers give them this money.
Time for beneficiaries to be thankful and whinge less!
Hey beneficiaries, we're working hard for ourselves, but for you too. How about doing something for yourself to help yourself out and make that money go further? Plant some veges, darn clothes rather than throw them out.
Good on Paula Bennett for providing information which balances out the story.
As a single mum (working full time), I bring in just a little more than Ms Fuller per week, but without the benefit (yes, pun intended)of being at home with my kids, and sadly with the additional burden of commuting and the stress and guilt of juggling it all.
Kudos to both women for studying and wishing to achieve their goals, but fair go to the rest of us taxpayers, eh??
My wife works 8-10 hour days ( including Saturdays and Sundays sometimes) in her own business and doesn't get anywhere near as much as 46K p/a after tax. Good on Paula Bennett for disclosing that information so that it gives more balance to the situation
All Blacks beat England in dour test
Police dob in drink driver to Air NZ
Wallabies humiliated by Scotland
Teacher has baby with 17-year-old student
Shyla's a purr-fect little mum
Bitter MP seeks reconciliation
Nice Kiwi blokes - shame about the women
Griffin's moves biscuits to Fiji
$450,000 march is political manipulation
Cyclists gone but their trash lingers
Mall campaign pays for 'protesters'
Playing chicken with the markets
That's a clear breach of the Privacy Act surely?