Hardcore Biker
A student loan is already available to beneficeries, just not the living costs portion. Why is a single parent any different than say a married woman reliant on only husbands income wanting to train...okay so they (the women) are asking for petrol /text book costs because their budgets are tight anyway, but that shouldn't stop them training...I know I've done it (on a student loan which I repaid) on a benefitOriginally Posted by pete376403
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
Do you have evidence that she lied? Please supply details as I am interested in seeing proof that our representatives are not being honest with the public.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Beware the psychosis llama...
Originally Posted by SPman
And she lied through her teeth - in best Government fashion!You're probably both a little off the mark, proving positively she lied is about as informative (not at all) and as difficult to prove as demonstrating the opposite.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
All this 'playing the man, not the ball' neatly diverts from the actual debate we should be having about whether the TIA should be available to certain classes of individual relying on state support. (as already stated by Winston)
I assume that 'lying' or not refers to whether advice was sought. I referred earlier to a Herald article which used the House as its source stating the privacy guidelines were consulted online. My source for the age of the information (a decade plus) was a commentator on National Radio yesterday morning. I CBF going and finding the podcast, but if anyone's in the mood go here.
Swoop earlier refers (I assume, with a 'ding') to PB's statement on Campbell live that she did speak to officials. (I didn't see the interview but have read of its contents elsewhere).
That is an oblique an uninformative statement and could mean anything, as 'officials' are undoubtedly 'consulted' in passing on almost anything due to their presence in and about the minister's office. Nowhere will anyone find a statement that the minister sought LEGAL advice, because she clearly didn't, or she'd be banging on about 'the legal opinion I received' in the media.
There has been deafening silence from PB or anyone in Government on this in Morning report...scared of being Benson-Poped by Sean Plunkett?
The issue is that the minister is primarily relying on old information, from a website in spite of the availability of quality legal advice on the matter.
The minister is relying on implied consent, which is a pretty tricky and 'grey' area of privacy law. This area will have moved since the guidelines were published, and in choosing to act in this way the minister cuts out any case law on the point. Lets not forget the cabinet manual too, which says that in matters of private information a minister should seek the advice of the privacy commissioner.
It's possible the women's publication of specific numbers elsewhere could be implied consent, or maybe not...the minister did not get up to date LEGAL advice on this, so she'll wear the consequences whatever.
The minister's decision seems like a bit of a n00b mistake at best, but in any case makes her look incautious, hasty and under-advised in a decision that could lead to a spanking from the privacy commissioner.
Everyone in talkback/internet forum/blogosphere can bleat on about whether there was a breach of privacy, and whether PB's disclosure was fair, but the only test that matters is the legal one as determined by the Privacy Commissioner - the very person PB should have consulted first in regards of both the act AND the cabinet manual.
The greatest irony of all would be if the women in question get to fund their studies via a damages payment...
Beware the psychosis llama...
FYI from the Herald Story
on point.
...Ms Bennett has told Parliament that she checked the Privacy Commission website before releasing the personal details of two solo-mothers.
An example on the Commission's website bears some striking parallels to Ms Bennett's disclosure.
Under the heading Checklist for Ministers and departmental officials, the following example is given: "Someone goes to the media about a Department's decision to stop their benefit and is quoted as saying it shows the unfairness of the policy."
The Commission advises:
"The Minister could comment in a way that discloses no further information than is already in the report (for instance explaining how the policy is designed to apply and why it says what it does). If the individual has misrepresented the facts on which the Department's actions were based, the Minister could say that there are some undisclosed facts which give a somewhat different picture and, if the individual would authorise release of further details from the Department's files, the Minister would be happy to oblige. Again, these facts could be set out in a letter to the individual and the media duly informed."
* Did Paula Bennett breach privacy rules?
The guidelines Ms Bennett was relying on when releasing the details:
GROUND ONE
Implicit consent:
"Authorisations do not have to be in writing. They may be given orally or inferred from statements made ... the minister need only believe, on reasonable grounds, that the individual has authorised the disclosure."
GROUND TWO
Where a person has released personal details to make allegations and the minister wishes to add further detail to respond.
"By releasing a large amount of personal information to the media, the individual is taking the risk that unfavourable publicity could result. If the minister releases only information which is relevant to the issues raised by the individual, that person may not be able to claim that any particular harm was caused by the ministers' disclosure rather than by the individual's own disclosure."
Source: Privacy Commission checklist for ministers and departmental officials.
Forum whore
GROUND TWO
Where a person has released personal details to make allegations and the minister wishes to add further detail to respond.
Sounds like a win to Paula to me !
David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
Beware the psychosis llama...
Possibly it will be. Possibly not. It's a complex area, and the minister failed to follow correct process WRT the privacy act and the cabinet manual.
See my second last paragraph. Problem is not necessarily the result, it's the process.
Forum whore
Nope.....this is politics.....the only desision that matters comes from the court of public opinion. PB could technically be in breach, have a damages ruling ruling made against her (which the taxpayer will pick up) and still come out smelling of roses.
Hardcore Biker
I agree with slowpoke, the legal test would only really matter if someone sued her, i.e the solo mums taking legal action against her, but as phurrball said, privacy law is grey area, so PB could still win or lose
Forum whore
Yeah, I am. 75K for cruising the net all day with a bit of work thrown in occasionally........
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
Jam and tarts....
People whinging about getting fuck all on the benefit? I was getting 180pw minus 20 for fines [shouldn't have ridden without rego then] minus board [$140] hmmm So did I play sad little man to the gubbermint? No, as far as I am concerned the DPB was an absolute last resort, I had just finished training and kept looking for a job, got job, sorted. If the gubburment isn't paying you enough, get a job....they pay fuck all for normal people such as myself. But the peoples details is a different story.
Alloy, stainless and Ti polishing.
Bling your bike out!
PM me
.....your time is coming
That's the point..kids with medical problems create family problems i.e. going to work as care is not easy to get...limited funding is there but people are not...I am only entitled to 4 hours care for Nats...
Imagine being a single mum, with sick kids going too work full time...a drunk driver gets ACC benefit...all the care they need, $110,000 modified vehicle, house mods etc etc..
Perspective?
Forum whore
I can't agree with you in this Graham.
It amazes me that we are paying this woman a benefit that is so generous it probably puts her in the top 10% of earners for her demographic.
Its not of case of being "nasty or nice", its simply a fact that 7 other women have to go to work full time to pay this woman.
And they end up paying her 1 - 1/2 times what they earn.
New Zealand was once a country of hard working, self sufficient people happy to support someone through hard times.
This has morphed into a country where people have the right to be supported by others. A country where your actions are un-important as other people are obligated to support you.
Somehow, both political parties, but Labour particularly, have drifted from being in support of the worker, to being in support of the beneficiary.
Who is actually concerned about the worker ?
With so much of our incomes now tied up in taxes to support others, and a massive state infrastructure, when will the worker actually get a break ?
David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
Hardcore Biker
am surprised no one else has mentioned that one of our MPs travel kickbacks over a period of 6 months total 1/2 the total annual income quoted in the title of this thread...............we pay for that too
I would rather have my taxes going toward helping out a solo parent (not all are female btw) and their kid/s than flying some fatcat around.
I would also like to see a time limit of sorts put onto the DPB, my understanding is that there is sort of one imposed already, but in saying that I dont necessarily believe it.
Also I dont understand why NZ allows ppl to come over from other countries and sign up for a benefit within days of being here, once had a lady on the line (while working for WINZ) who was getting more than the $700pw lady, she was already on a bloody good wicket, had been granted special benefits on top of her "entitlements" and was ringing the call centre having a big fat cry that her close to $800 pw was not enuf - she sounded to be Arabic-ish?? I pointed out to her that she was getting more a week than I was and I was working 40hrs, also suggested that she was a tad cheeky.........all calls are recorded and I ended up being given a formal warning by my manager. Cant fuckn win with this one
WESTIE CHICKS ROCK
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
A "hand-up" for one of the people concerned, has eventuated in the taxpayer being taken for a fool and also a ride. The 9 grand spent on setting up a cleaning business, is a total joke.
IF she honestly intended to make her life better, and take advantage of the opportunity offered by the taxpayer, then good on her.
If she intended just to "take advantage of the taxpayer" then she should be held in great contempt by all.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
.....your time is coming
I see so this solo Mum with a child with a medical condition should not get a benefit...but a Drunk driver can claim 80% of their salary for life, have constant care, have paid family members look after them, have housing mods and a $110,000 vehicle to get around....all paid by us...If they had not decided to drink and drive think of the saving.This women had a sick child and is not supported by the Father. Care for the child is limited so her options are limited.I have shared custody of a disabled Daughter..half the week for 3 years and then ex threw a Custody Battle at me and I get less time. I had a reasonably well paid job, made redundant, got a really well paid contract job but there was too much pressure etc and I just did not need it so got a job earning just below the average and rent out 2 rooms and use savings from last job...I have to keep my high mortgage house for Nats as it has mods...My folks are here and pick Nats up from school but that's it...it's a struggle but if I had full custody..and this is my point..I would struggle to hold down a job that suited my circumstances and finances..my folks are 70's and I would only get 8 hours care a week...Perhaps this women is in that position and we should move away from the old "scrounger argument"..money etc and look at the situation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks