I have no sympathy for rich beneficiaries who lose their Training Incentive Allowance

post has been updated
I do have a problem with Social Development minister Paula Bennett releasing private details of beneficiaries to a newspaper purely because they criticised National’s policy to remove the Training Incentive Allowance (TIA) for those who are taking graduate courses. Bennett said she looked at the Privacy Commissioners website for guidance on whether to release private information. Perhaps the first time she looked at that website was shortly after 11:24am yesterday. She obviously didn’t look at the Cabinet Manual.

Mind you I also have a problem with a beneficiary Natasha Fuller who has three kids and more weekly income than our entire family. She has enough to pay for hair extensions ( which she may or may not have got when getting state assistance) but moans about how she can’t afford to study without the TIA. I am also a student with three other mouths to feed and I can’t afford $400.00 for hair extensions. But unlike Fuller I probably get 5-6 hours sleep a night and spend more hours studying than she does because I do a lot of it when the kids are school or asleep.

Natasha Fuller criticised National for removing the Training Incentive Allowance from degree courses, adding that National wanted people like her to aspire to working in a supermarket. Except that she is a trained private investigator and has done a small business course. Perhaps people working in supermarkets would aspire to be in her situation. The never-married Fuller has three kids to two different men and has been on and off the dpb for about three years. She currently gets $715.00 per week – way more than those on the average wage - but that does not include child support or any money from IRD – or food grants. I was told by the NZ Herald that the income probably doesn’t include Working for Families, either. That's questionable. So if you are working for 40 hours a week and you get less than $17.88 an hour, you are worse off than Fuller, and she doesn't even work. Fuller should go and get a partner called Bill S*it and link up surnames – Fuller-s*it.

And this from Jennifer Johnston, whose details were also made public.

But with the allowance discontinued and childcare, course materials, uniforms, transport and other costs not covered by a student loan, Jennifer has no idea if she can continue.

She can do what other people do. Go off the benefit, onto a student allowance, study a full year instead of just three papers, get a student loan for course costs, borrow $1000 for course related expenses like books, transport, and computer gear, get a grant from WINZ for second hand school uniforms. And get a part time job, and a childcare subsidy from WINZ.

Why should student allowances be taxed, whereas TIA’s are not? The only reason a university student is on the dpb is to save up to $3620 on course costs every year - and study part time to ensure course costs aren't over the allowance amount each year - and to live in the manner to which they are accustomed to. Why should they when others get student allowances?

I worked hard, but I may lose my home

*** what do Labour's researchers do? ***
updated
Bruce Burgess lost his $750 per week job in the recession and was turned away from WINZ because his partner worked part time. She earns $21,000 a year. WINZ turned them away,and so they wrote to their MP who so happens to be the Prime Minister.

When he got the letter he reportedly flicked it off to Paula Bennett's office who did nothing.Then the Labour Party found out about it. Instead of checking the Burgess' entitlements and assisting them, Labour told the NZ Herald who wrote this story. On the surface, it needs to be fixed up because it is appalling.I spoke with the reporter early this afternoon and told him that the family is entitled to a partial benefit.

If they are earning just $21,000, WINZ was wrong to turn them away. They are entitled to register as job seekers through WINZ and are entitled to $91.20 a week in an unemployment benefit as well as possibly an accommodation supplement to assist them with their mortgage. Couldn't the Herald find that out? Depending on their mortgage they may be entitled to further assistance. I've relayed that info on to Keys office.

Given that Labour leaked this story, I'm wondering if its pixie researchers do any research. It's latest media release says that Burgess' wife's income disqualifies the couple from any temporary access to the unemployment benefit.

That's false. And Labour now know it.

update Burgess claims to own several properties, but is not receiving income from them. And I see that John Key has relayed the above in Parliament, and while I was doing this post the Herald updated its story. I spoke with the journalist and requested he do so because the facts of the story were incorrect given entitlement of a benefit on $21k.

update2 And Labour knew all along that the Burgesses owned multiple properties but apparently never told the Herald.

more here.