The way paula bennett released the information, the more that someone was preceived to be receiving the worse of financally they will be.

for example, 2 people earning $500 a week on DPB both had 2 children under 3 both had $300 rent both decide to Train to get off DPB.

One studying part time, one full time. Ms X receives 565 govt support while Ms Y receives 832 govt support. Who is better off?

For the one receiving 832 and studying full time, 325 is childcare sub getting paid by the govt straight to registered childcare provider and not to her at all, leaving 500 which she has to pay 100 (as its a sub not a full payment) to the childcare provider herself, leaving 400 with 300 rent leaves 100 for food, bills, nappies etc per week.

For the one studying part time one day a week, 65 to childcare provider leaving her 500, which she pays 20 per week to childcare provider herself, leaving her 480, 300 a week rent so leaving 180 for bills and food.

The one receiving less govt help is better off in the hand though the person receiving more is really struggling and prob getting eggs thrown at them, children being yelled at in the street etc.

Question what you hear and look into it before you jump on the bandwagon and hurl abuse at solo parents, Both women and men. (as I know a few men solo fathers they get congratulated and the women get abuse hurled at them)

Did it really give a fair argument by releasing the amount of Govt help these women got? One did have children in childcare and after school care and her subs were added on.

A friend of mine recieves $700 a week from the "government" for her DPB payments. Her ex-husband pays the government $900 per week in child support. There are a few people being ripped off in this situation but it's certainly not the taxpayer.

If I get into a housing corp, I would be on less money losing the 120 accom, BUT be better off at the end of the week. Hmmmm. Maybe if NZ want us to receive less money maybe something has to be done about the lack of Housing NZ houses. Rent is usually 300+ I'm wondering how many of these people moaning are renting to Solo parents, asking them for this amount for rent for their investment properties, and on the other demanding that our benefit get cut to under 500. Power has gone up, Food has gone up... Just a thought but who are you renting your houses too and could they continue to pay if the benefit is cut?

The ONLY thing that can be grossed up is 272.70 which is the DPB part. the other part is accom sub, family tax credits, childcare sub, which alot of NZ can get. This information can be found on WINZ website and on Working for families website if you ever wanted to check it out. People get caught on the number not the situation or high living expenses. Paula Bennett didn't release all the information to make a real judgement and said it was net which only part of it is so made it sound more than what it was. This gave her the reaction that she wanted.

What do you all get for family tax credits? I pay tax and have a right to know so fess up! Alot are over 200 a week. for 3 kids on 35000k it can be 288 per week.

The real issue is that every person, whether on benefits or not, has the right to voice opinion regarding government policy and changes which affect. That is actually set in law. No person should be personally attacked by a minister for raising legitimate concerns which affect a wide group of people. Nor should any right thinking person abuse their professional position to obtain personal information gained during confidential process for release to the press; for what? To score points against two women. Its unconscionable in any civilised society. Its against decency and the law! Its disgusting and its difficult to see how any decent person could not see that.

Not only does Bennett's action breach Privacy Act legislation, but the NZ Bill of Rights. Further, suffering defamatory insinuation from a government Minister and release of this information has resulted in the women being publicly mauled; this has actually breached their Human Rights.

This is the tip of the iceburg. If this behaviour is allowed, a precedent is raised which says its OK for government departments to trawl through personal records and pass information to any Minister for release to the press. Warning bells should ring. Are we to expect intimidation against any person who desents.

Paula Bennett is showing herself to be a rough, arrogant, clumsy, power hungry bully, lacking sound judgement and political finesse. At previous question times, the house has maintained a stance not to speak on specific cases. It appears she used her power to lash out without even checking the facts!

Worryingly, this woman has a portfolio that covers the most vulnerable people in this society. Any professional, in any profession of integrity would face disciplinary proceedings for this and many have been dismissed.

Finally, Bennetts actions are entirely hypercritical and betray the trust of the people. She achieved her position on the back of women who receive benefits. They voted for her because she had 'been there'. She received the portfolio probably for the same reasons.

Her smarmy comment that they might be a minister one day if they're lucky, is taunting and opens the door to examine how much support it took for her to actually achieve this. Therefore it is reasonable that information regarding her earnings whilst on benefits should be released and set against the cost of living of the day; then we can judge if its realistic on todays income for beneficiaries to have this aspiration.

The minister should not reveal information private to an individual. What these people get is apparently appropriate to their situations. What the minister has done is to make this issue one of government credibility in the way they work with members of society. The minister has shown gross misconduct that would not be allowed in any workplace. The minister should now try to recover credibility.

I honestly can't believe the reaction those two women have been given by the public. I am disappointed to discover what a fatuous, small-minded, and easily diverted country we are. Arguments about what people on benefits receive aside, these two women have every right to their privacy, and to have it violated by a minister of the crown is appalling. The manner in which she did so shows us the smugness and self-righteousness so inherent in this national government. If the government had any moral decency whatsoever, then they would avoid this sort of behaviour towards people who are, at the end of the day, voters.

It is a timely reminder that we should always be vigilant against governments which allow their ministers to discredit people who criticise them. It is the first step towards totalitarianism. A small step, perhaps, but what is next.

Ms Bennett should at the least be forced to divulge how much she received from the taxpayer when she was a single mother. If she does not do so, she should be forced to resign if she hasn't got the decency to offer her resignation.

Oh, and by the way, I am a tax payer and, until recently, a full-time worker, and I am proud that our country offers a safety net for those who need it. People who are on benefits should never be made to feel guilty. How hard it is to find the motivation to better your circumstances when all around you, the self-righteous and ill-informed are judging you.

I have recieved the DPB for three children which was way less than Fuller and Johnston recieve My two older children have gone on to further their studies, I still recieve the DPB for my youngest child I have been studying for three years and I have never applied for the training incentive allowance cause I believe that money can be used for other worthy causes I am greatful for what I recieve while its a struggle at times I think of those worse off than myself and that soon makes me appreciate what I have. I am in my final year of my degree and I am confident that when I graduate there will be a job somewhere for me. Paula keep up the good work its people like you who will take us into a better future.

Surely Bennett's broken the law here. Most Govt. Employees would be in deep poo for releasing this info.

`Ms Bennett said she did it to round up a one-sided story'. Well, for the full story we need the two lady's personal info & how much there ex's contribute to child support.

I want to know who the highest paid beneficiary is, But I'm sure it's illegal for Bennett to tell me who it is.

What was this about again, ohh yeah the TIA.

As one of the people who is taxed to pay these parasites their benefits, I have a right to know just how much of what I'm being bled is ending up in their pockets.

whoo hoo. The labour supporters are out in force today!

FYI James #43. It is you who are wrong. the $712 per week IS NET. This means a GROSS income (EG BEFORE TAX for the terminally stupid) of circa $50,000. So Colin is correct and you have shown yourself an idiot. Well done on both fronts hahahahahahaaaa.