Paula Bennett

Politicians and any oither civil servant whom are paid by tax payers have their salaries and benefits open for public viewing and scrutiney, so why can't beneficiaries? They are after all being paid by the tax payer and are in the same position.

Not true.

Not quite right.  the house in Karori is owned by his family trust.  He removed himself as a benefactor of that family trust soon after the election.  Which means the amount he is allowed to collect as an accomadation allowance is higher than the if he was a benefactor.

Not sure - TV 3 said that tonight: http://www.3news.co.nz/Investigation-reveals-more-National-MPs-rorting-the-system/tabid/370/articleID/115208/cat/67/Default.aspx

you get what you pay for- frankly im glad the government isnt made of mostly paupers and nutters. who else would do the thankless job if it didnt pay well?

so did anyone hear about what PB said on Breakfast today?

apparantely there is a job out there for each and everyone of us. Ok Paula, not sure what planet you are living on....

http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/breakfast-wednesday-march-24-3429933/video?vid=3430036

Yeah, but are you obliged to accept any job you are offered?You should still be able to choose something that suits you.

Funny, I'm looking for a part time job, I can't find one. Note: If someone on Yellow Fever owns a shop and has a part time job for a uni student pm me.

Within reason.

I.E. shift work so you never see your kids, not expected. Job at Maccas while your kids are at school, expected.

Yeah, but are you obliged to accept any job you are offered?

You should still be able to choose something that suits you.

So then if I wsnted to be a Proffessional DPBer (there is a possibility there are some out there), every time a child of mine hit 5 years, I'd get pregant again, get state help, get an increase in my DPB for the extra child and not have to seek/ get part-time work. [/QUOTE]
Or they could adopt out their kids, get married and then become widowed

Whole thing is a shambles:
[quote]In a report just tabled in Parliament, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson says the reforms breach the Bill of Rights Act on three grounds by discriminating on the basis of sex and family and marital status.
Widowed men with children cannot get the widows benefit (WB) - which will not be work-tested - but can get the domestic purposes benefit-solo parent (DPB-SP), which will come under the new regime.

"The introduction of the part-time work test for the DPB-SP for people caring for children over the age of six, but not the WB, means that widowers are subject to additional obligations and associated sanctions. This is a distinction based on sex," Mr Finlayson finds.

The distinction between DPB recipients with children over six and women on the widow's benefit also discriminated on the basis of marital status as solo parents who had always been single or lost their partner through divorce or separation faced work tests, but not those who were widowed.

There was also discrimination on the basis of family status as women on the domestic purposes benefit-women alone did not face work tests, while those with children over six did.

So then if I wsnted to be a Proffessional DPBer (there is a possibility there are some out there), every time a child of mine hit 5 years, I'd get pregant again, get state help, get an increase in my DPB for the extra child and not have to seek/ get part-time work.

So then if I wsnted to be a Proffessional DPBer (there is a possibility there are some out there), every time a child of mine hit 5 years, I'd get pregant again, get state help, get an increase in my DPB for the extra child and not have to seek/ get part-time work.

If I was an employer I wdn't hire a mother over anyone else suitable for a job. We have a mother at my work who works 9-2.30 and has done so for years but truthfully even tho I'm female I resent that she takes so much time off whenever one of her kids are sick and she gets a large amount of school holidays off