$48,000 P.A. no skills easy hours, call me.

**davereid** · 29th July 2009, 18:00

Originally Posted by buffstar

The thing that incenses me is that these ladies privacy has been breached...

They started a public debate about their income. They therefore offered the data themselves, either directly or indirectly.

**Swoop** · 29th July 2009, 19:28

Nice to see the Liarbour party looking like even bigger tossers today.

Go phill goff! You are de man.

**Ixion** · 29th July 2009, 19:30

Originally Posted by Molly

Maybe we should defrost Maggie Thatcher (yes, I know she's not dead but we'd still need to defrost her) and bring her down to sort out all the scroungers.

...

Damn good idea. The welfare system was supposed to be a handup for workers, not a handout for bludgers.

What gets overlooked is that the because so much of the welfare budget goes to those who know how to grab, many genuinely deserving people are forced to live lives of deprivation and penury. (no, not me, I am indeed just a poor impoverished old man ekeing out a parsimonious existence on the smell of an oily rag, but that's because all my money goes on my bike addiction - worse than tobacco, gambling and drink put together it is)

**Winston001** · 29th July 2009, 19:38

Originally Posted by Finn

Okay, Buffstar, 18 months is a bit long. Next time I'm down your way I'll stop by and you can wash my bike while I sit back and drink some of your beers. After this you can cook me a meal and we'll call it even.

And cook the man some eggs.

**SPman** · 29th July 2009, 19:51

Originally Posted by Swoop

Paula Bennett clearly stated last night, that she had consulted her advisory staff prior to releasing the information.
*Ding!* next.

And she lied through her teeth - in best Government fashion!
The issue isn't about the benefit - it's about every person who has any confidential information held by the government having the right to have that information protected. You don't give up that right by complaining about the government!

They seem to think that a couple of lowly beneficiaries having their financial details with a government department released to the media is not going to have repercussions... wrong. That standard must be applied to everyone else having any sort of financial relationship with the State. Well... those that the National government don't like. They are mistaken - totally mistaken on the scope of this breach. The category of person that the National government thinks should not have any privacy rights - at this moment in time - are hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries.

But the question - at this moment in time - is what other categories of person does this new rule apply? Unhappy contractors? State employees in wage disputes? Patients complaining about a DHB? It's a very long list.

You start at a couple of "whinging dole-bludgers" as a target, but if consistency and principles mean anything it will also apply to every person having any sort of connexion with the government; which via taxes and assistance programmes, pensions, contracts etc. is a vast majority of the population. Complaining about your tax situation... and you don't like Peter Dunne... is it now OK for Peter Dunne to release your tax records to the NZ Herald?

If they want to start a debate about the level of legal benefit entitlements, then do just that - don't use a couple of seemingly well paid beneficiaries details as an excuse to attack the axing of vearious government education subsidies and grants.

If the benefit seems too high, then what are people doing about getting a decent living wage in NZ. Sitting back, taking what they're given and moaning about someone who gets more than they do from a benefit! Are they trying to push for higher wages? No! It's attack the beneficiary, who is classed as a lazy, useless, grasping scumbag, whatever their situation, and try and kick them down lower than they often already are.
The politicos know this, of course and Paula Bennet is yet another government patsy softening people up for cuts - appeal to the baying mobs!
Still, a country gets what it deserves and, from outside, NZ is looking worse by the week!

**Winston001** · 29th July 2009, 20:08

Originally Posted by SPman

The issue isn't about the benefit - it's about every person who has any confidential information held by the government having the right to have that information protected. You don't give up that right by complaining about the government!

Agreed and we shouldn't easily wave that right away.

On the other hand many people are sick of only hearing one side of the story and the other side being tied up by privacy and political correctness. For example we hear almost weekly about children being abused by their families but CYPS are not allowed to make the file public. At its core, that is simply wrong.

The question in this case is should the State (taxpayer) be paying more money to these ladies to let them study? Ok - how much are they already receiving, what are their other options?

Now we know and it cuts through a lot of waffle. I seriously do not think these women have lost any rights or protections.

**smoky** · 29th July 2009, 20:12

Originally Posted by allycatz

She left him because she didn't love him anymore?

And how many woman find themselves on a benefit because their husbands left for that very same reason, then get crucified for living compliments of the taxpayer?

I realise women tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to marriage break ups, men get most the blame.
But I'm not arguing about that;
It doesn't matter who left who for what reason - what I was talking about was the growing trend to bugger off (male and female) and the state has to help out. As apposed to a genuine need for assistance in the case of a partner suffering from abuse or something.
Perhaps it should be compulsory to take out marriage insurance that pays you an equivalent of the salary for a year if the wage earner pisses off, or something!

**short-circuit** · 29th July 2009, 20:12

Originally Posted by Winston001

Agreed and we shouldn't easily wave that right away.

it's not

The word your are looking for is waive

**allycatz** · 29th July 2009, 20:17

Once upon a time WINZ paid for entire courses as well as training allowance to help with petrol, childcare and text books. Now they only pay for course related costs. I don't see why beneficeries can't use the same system as any one else...ie student loan

**smoky** · 29th July 2009, 20:22

Originally Posted by SPman

What a vindictive, jealous,whining, non-thinking, knee jerk reactionary load of old twaddle!
"She gets more Bla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla bla Bla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla blaBla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla Bla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla blaBla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla Bla bla bla bla blaaaa blllaaaa bloody bla bla herself out of the hole that these people are asking for."

So I take it you're on the bludge as well ?

**allycatz** · 29th July 2009, 20:29

Originally Posted by smoky

I realise women tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to marriage break ups, men get most the blame.
But I'm not arguing about that;
It doesn't matter who left who for what reason - what I was talking about was the growing trend to bugger off (male and female) and the state has to help out. As apposed to a genuine need for assistance in the case of a partner suffering from abuse or something.
Perhaps it should be compulsory to take out marriage insurance that pays you an equivalent of the salary for a year if the wage earner pisses off, or something!

Actually Id like to see automatic 50/50 custody of children unless there has been a protection order. Parents to share kids, no child support. Thing is, its easy to say a solo parent should get off their butts and work but reality is there arn't always the jobs and the logistics of working with kids that are often across a wide age range, school holidays etc makes it difficult. The logical single parents to work are the young unmarried Mums with one child, not woman with several kids who have often been through trauma or need retraining to be employable again

**Winston001** · 29th July 2009, 20:37

Originally Posted by short-circuit

it's not

The word you are looking for is waive

LOL actually no, wave is correct and what I intended. Scan it, it works. As in wave away/brush off the bothersome political correctness of protecting minor disclosures. But waive works too.

**pete376403** · 29th July 2009, 21:01

Originally Posted by allycatz

Actually Id like to see automatic 50/50 custody of children unless there has been a protection order. Parents to share kids, no child support. Thing is, its easy to say a solo parent should get off their butts and work but reality is there arn't always the jobs and the logistics of working with kids that are often across a wide age range, school holidays etc makes it difficult. The logical single parents to work are the young unmarried Mums with one child, not woman with several kids who have often been through trauma or need retraining to be employable again

I heard one of the women on nat radio, she says she IS trying to get off the benefit by training as a nurse, also she said she wasn't asking for a handout, but a loan, similar to a student loan. If the govt cuts the training allowance, what chance is there of anyone getting a job that gets them off benefits?
Also why the big stink about the benefit she gets - the govt sets that, not the benficiaries.

**Rayray401** · 29th July 2009, 21:21

Meh, NZ benefits always been too high compared to other countries. and it is true, depending on what the solo mums said..they do waive their privacy by putting their own circumstances out to the public, in a way, Bennett was actually just stating the facts and 'supporting' the claims of the solo mums to the public. There has been no breach of privacy. (ofcourse i have no idea what the mums actually said in public that provoked Bennett?), but main thing is, if you put your own private circumstances out to the public for the public to see, the court can easily say that you waive that right of privacy as it is in the publics interest to see the full picture, not just the one sided picture.