Media Releases
22nd June 2010
Attention: Political / Welfare
Reporters
STARTS
Hand Up welcomes the Privacy
Commissioner’s findings on the Privacy complaint laid against
the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula
Bennett, in August last year, by sole parent Natasha Fuller.
Although the Privacy Commissioner has not made a final
determination on the alleged breach of privacy against Natasha
we are pleased that the Commissioner has found “sufficient
substance” in the complaint to refer the matter for
consideration by the Director of the Human Rights Proceedings.
We look forward to a definitive outcome from this process. Hand
Up offers its sincere thanks to Natasha for sharing her story
with us. It has been extremely unfortunate that her life has
been laid open and stripped bare by the Minister’s actions;
actions and comments that lead to the subsequent public debate
and ‘bene bashing’ furore, which continues to this day.
Hand Up originally brought this issue to the fore to highlight
the policy change to the Training Incentive Allowance and
illustrate what the farreaching implications and extreme
consequences were. The issue has never been about the level or
adequacy of benefit payments but the Minister chose to make it
so, thus invading the rights of individual citizens. This issue
will not be resolved until the Minister, Paula Bennett, and the
National Government reconsider their policies surrounding adult
and continuing education.
To this end, Hand Up would like, once again, to challenge the
Minster to provide an adequate level of additional funding for
eligible beneficiaries so they can access an affordable and
realistic training allowance to enable them to undertake higher
level study and successfully move off welfare dependency, as she
had the opportunity to do. After all, Welfare is about giving a
Hand UP not a hand out.
Hand Up hopes that we can move on from this point and that this
country will never again have to revisit the issue of Ministers’
of the Crown ignoring the rights and privacy of individuals of
this country to further their political agenda.
ENDS
2nd May 2010
STARTS
1. There is, and has been from the beginning
of this whole debacle, an imbalance of power in this situation;
a minister of the crown throwing her political weight around
against a client of her department to “teach [her] a lesson”,
fuelling horrendous public vilification and ‘bene bashing’, over
and over again, whilst ignoring the basic issue at hand – that
by slashing back the TIA it has caused many eligible
beneficiaries to withdraw from study as it is no longer
affordable.
2. It was via the Privacy Commission that Fuller met with
Bennett. I strongly believe that it was absolutely inappropriate
for the PC to broker this meeting, particularly at this stage of
the investigation and indeed at all. Due to the position that
the Minister holds, I believe the PC should have organised
to hold the meeting at a neutral place with an independent
facilitator so that everything said could be monitored and so
that no misunderstandings could be had.
3. If there was nothing untoward discussed in the meeting, why
did Bennett side-step answering and confirming that a meeting
had taken place? She could easily have said – right at the
beginning - that the PC encouraged the meeting in the best
interests of the investigation, as is their policy.
4. It is my understanding that Fuller was not the source of leak
the of 'emails' or FaceBook discussion. It was the recipient of
those communications who did, for whoknows-what reasons. It is
also my understanding that the recipient was encouraging Fuller
into making the off-the-cuff comments in a joking vein so that
they could be taken out of context and used against her.
5. Here are some facts about the course of events:-
a. The women that Ms Bennett chose to put in the spotlight and
let be vilified in public (even though 5 people were named in
Parliament) DID NOT give any personal financial information to
any Labour Party MP. The only information they gave was how
losing TIA would affect their ability to continue their
learning.
b. At no time, in any communication with MP’s or with the media,
did anyone concerned say that the DPB was NOT enough to live on.
They only highlighted the impact that losing the TIA would have
on their ability to either undertake or continue their studies,
as beneficiaries with children in their care.
c. The two women did not approach the media. They were known to
the reporter of the original story (NZ Herald, Govt axe destroys
dreams, 19.07.09) through the then newly formed lobby group Hand
Up (formed 10.07.09), and asked to comment so that the issue of
the cutting back of the TIA could be highlighted, using their
individual experiences.
d. It was only after the Minister talked to the media about the
two women specifically, that Natasha approached TV3 to try and
defend herself against the ensuing onslaught of hatred towards
her (NZ Herald, Bennett gets tough with outspoken solo mums,
27.07.09).
6. The full timeline of how the events unfolded is very clear,
including who did and said what and when.
The Privacy Complaint should continue to its rightful conclusion
without further delay. There needs to be a ruling.
We need to know whether or not, under current law, if it is
acceptable for Minister’s of the Crown (or indeed any
Parliamentarian) to be able to use their position, resources at
their disposal and political power to release personal and
private details of an individual citizen in to the public domain
to further their political agenda and policy.
The ramifications of this are huge and if the ruling is against
the complainant then our basic human right to privacy will have
been stripped from us. It will give carte blanche to politicians
to use our personal situations for their political gain, without
having to consider the consequences to the individual involved,
in particular beneficiaries.
Over and again, Minister Bennett has insinuated that it is okay
for Joe Public to think that it is their absolute right to
demand to know the personal financial details of a beneficiary
because he or she is being paid by the tax payer and thus are
not afforded the basic rights of the ‘ordinary’ New Zealander.
Tactics like this should not now, nor ever be tolerated by the
New Zealand public, irrespective of their personal views and
beliefs about beneficiaries. This is a much larger issue of
human rights and we are entitled to those rights no matter what
our socioeconomic status is.
Beneficiaries should not be treated as second class citizens,
especially by someone representing the state at this level.
Allow it to happen and what will happen next? A line needs to be
drawn and the Privacy Commissioner has to step up to the plate
and draw that line otherwise a precedent will have been set.
Minister rejects
inaccurate claims Friday, 30 April 2010, 11:30 am
Press Release: New Zealand Government
Minister rejects inaccurate claims
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is strongly rejecting
inaccurate claims made on TV3 news last night that she offered
money to settle a privacy complaint. “These allegations are
completely untrue,” says Ms Bennett.
Ms Bennett says when approached by 3 News for comment about the
story, the reporter refused to supply any detail whatsoever
about the substance of the allegation being pursued.
“The subsequent story that money was offered by me to settle the
complaint was unbalanced and untrue,” says Ms Bennett. Ms
Bennett says in this morning’s New Zealand Herald, the
complainant was quoted as saying there had been no offer of
money. When asked about the 3 News report, the complainant said:
"None of that is true"
Ms Bennett says she is considering her legal options in light of
the 3 News story and way the network promoted that story. “As at
this morning both parties involved in this issue have rejected
the claims. 3 News owes the complainant and myself an apology,”
says Ms Bennett “During this complaint process my actions have
been entirely appropriate and in line with Privacy Commission
advice,” says Ms Bennett. “I am going through this process with
integrity and honesty,” says Ms Bennett.
Ms Bennett says the untrue story has generated a significant
amount of comment and contact to her office from upset members
of the public.
ENDS
29 April 2010
Attention: Education and Political reporters
STARTS
Hand Up is very concerned to learn that a meeting, as
alleged by TV3 tonight, supposedly took place between the
Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett,
and Natasha Fuller yesterday.
Hand Up have no knowledge of any meeting taking place and have
no comment to make on this subject at this time.
Ms Fuller has asked for privacy, however, and for the media to
respect her request for privacy, as her family have gone through
a tumultuous time over the past few months and her children are
suffering the consequences.
We have faith that the Privacy Commission works to protect the
rights of ordinary New Zealanders and look forward to the
Privacy Commissioner’s ruling on the Privacy Complaint in due
course.
We continue to act on behalf of beneficiaries to lobby the
National-led Government to either reinstate the Training
Incentive Allowance or put in place an effective, affordable and
accessible stream of funding to enable higher level study to be
undertaken. It is about a HAND UP not a hand out.
ENDS
3rd December 2009
Attention: Education and
Political reporters
STARTS
HAND UP, having considered
the full implications of the Training Incentive Allowance
announcement1 on 2nd December by the Minister for
Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, is concerned
about the possible additional hardship and inequity it may
cause.
The Minister states in her
press release that, "The recoverable assistance will not have to
be repaid until the person finishes their course or goes off
benefit, whichever comes first."
This loan will be
administered through WINZ rather than through Study Link and so
does not form part of the Student Loan regime.
This could mean that
beneficiaries will be in debt for a further $500 and required to
re-pay it as soon their course concludes, even if they do not
secure paid employment
(the current threshold for
repaying a student loan2 is a weekly income of over
$367 before tax whereas the maximum rate for a Domestic Purposes
Beneficiary is $316.22 before tax3).
For most, course end will
fall at the end of the academic year, close to Christmas, and
after a year of study where they have faced costs not generally
faced by other categories of tertiary students, as acknowledged
by the Minister in her statement.
This loan is not equitable
with respect to the requirements for repayment of Student Loans
and inequitable with respect to the intent of the Student Loan
Scheme and may potentially place beneficiaries who take up this
funding option in a worse financial position than if they did
not take it up.
Hand UP recommends that
beneficiaries give this loan option a wide birth and lobby the
Minister to find a more equitable, affordable and
non-prejudicial alternative that will enable and encourage
eligible beneficiaries to undertake study to further their
journey to full, productive employment, as is consistent with
the Minister’s long-term strategy for beneficiaries.
1 http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new+study+assistance+beneficiaries
2 http://www.ird.govt.nz/studentloans/payments/compulsory/when/
3 http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/deskfile/main_benefits_rates/domestic_purposes_benefit_sole_parent_tables.htm
ENDS
2nd December 2009
Attention: Education and Political reporters
STARTS
HAND UP congratulates the Social Development
Minister Paula Bennett on her compromise of assistance for sole
parents engaging in Level 4 and above tertiary study, but
remains disappointed that the targeting funding of $500 is far
from adequate to cover additional costs of study faced by sole
parents.
HAND UP would also like to remind the
Minister that the changes to TIA affected more than just sole
parents
The Training Incentive Allowance is available to:-
• Domestic Purposes Beneficiaries
• Invalid Beneficiaries
• Widow’s Beneficiaries
• Emergency Maintenance Beneficiaries
Providing an adequate level of additional funding for eligible
beneficiaries would enable those beneficiaries to make positive
changes to their lives and create positive futures for their
children and their families ...
it is about giving a HAND UP not a hand out.
ENDS
21st August 2009
Attention: Education and Political reporters
STARTS
HAND UP
is pleased that the Government has as one of its social
development focuses
job creation opportunities for the youth of
New Zealand through partnership programmes with the business
sector, establishment of NGO’s and other like programmes.
We are concerned, however,
the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s continued
broad hints that her future policy direction points towards an
agenda of cutting access to welfare benefits, entitlements and
allowances. These policies are primarily directed at adults and
are likely to create further barriers to study and employment
opportunities rather than removing them. Upskilling, through
higher-level study, leads to a future of full, skilled
employment and significantly lessens dependency on welfare
programmes – a positive social and economic benefit to the
country.
We ask the Minister, Paula
Bennett, to take a step back and reassess Government’s long-term
strategic direction, ideology and policies on welfare,
employment and education because what the Government puts in
place now will undoubtedly impact on the quality of our society
in years to come.
Our issue is NOT
about individuals. It is NOT about whether the basic
benefit is or is not enough to live on day-to-day, nor has it
ever been.
It is, however, about
providing access to a stream of funding that will enable
beneficiaries to make positive changes to their lives and create
positive
futures for their children and their families ... it is about
giving a HAND UP not a hand out.
Our latest lobby letter to the Government will be sent out on
Monday 24th July.
ENDS
30 July 2009
Attention: Education and Political reporters
For Immediate Release
STARTS
We applaud the
Minister’s decision to review the Student Loan and the Training
Incentive Allowance schemes, as she stated yesterday.
The Training
Incentive Allowance has, in the past, significantly helped by
covering the shortfall in expenses some beneficiaries incur when
they undertake any form of study. The MSD’s own research
highlights lack of funding as a major barrier for beneficiaries
in terms of successful outcome and moving off the welfare
system.
The crucial issue
has always been that neither the student loan scheme as it
stands, nor any other allowances, cover the costs that
beneficiaries incur in studying.
“That's why
removing the TIA created a barrier to them going on to higher
level study. It created a shortfall. We anxiously await Ms
Bennett's solution to this major problem," says Trudy Basire, a
spokesperson for
Hand Up,
“Our group does
not ask for a handout, only a HAND UP to help beneficiaries move
off the benefit and into productive, paid employment.”
Hand Up
is a growing group of diverse New Zealander’s who strongly
believe that the Government’s recent policy change to the
Training Incentive Allowance severely affects many
beneficiaries’ ability to undertake higher level education
(Level 4 and above on the NZQA framework).
It is important for us to state that our group is not affiliated
with any political party and remains independent of any such
links.
The recent disclosure and dissemination of private financial
details of two of our supporters has, we believe, breached their
personal privacy rights under NZ Privacy Law. Interestingly, in
1995 the then Minister of Health, the Honourable Jenny Shipley,
made a similar disclosure about a NZ citizen and was found to be
at fault by the Privacy Commissioner.
This situation has caused two of our supporters to be vilified
in the public domain and this is unacceptable by anyone’s
standards. The Minister has caused this to happen through her
actions and we feel that New Zealander’s rights as private
individuals have been seriously undermined.
Given the vitriol these women have suffered, this group will no
longer undertake any debate regarding the private lives of any
of our supporters. Natasha Fuller has told us she has removed
herself from public discussion around the TIA and we completely
support her in that decision.
Hand Up,
however, is more than happy to discuss the issue of the Training
Incentive Allowance and how the Government’s policy change
affects the lives and future employment opportunities of
beneficiaries.
We are in contact every day with dozens more beneficiaries
desperate to get off the benefit through education.
Hand Up
is a group of ordinary New Zealander’s, sitting at our dining
tables or computer desks with our computers and often unreliable
internet access, fighting for what we believe in.
We do not have the luxury of being advised by a Ministerial
department. We do not have press secretaries to help us and we
do not have the obvious oratory skills of a Minister of the
Crown. We do have, however, the right and motivation to speak
out and lobby for change in Government policy, and are pleased
to be able to do so.
ENDS
|
