Bennett Bags Beneficiaries
Such an interesting range of reactions in the blogosphere to Paula Bennett’s revealing of the amount of benefit the two ladies who features the the Herald over the weekend are receiving. Natasha Fuller and Jennifer Johnston appear in the article entitled Govt axe destroys dreams, claiming that Bennet’s removal of the allowance for sole parent beneficiaries going to university ruined their chances of making a better life for themselves. That was a fairly powerful argument until Bennett’s department revealed that their current benefits are the after-tax equivalent of $50,000 and $35,000 respectively. And they can still apply for student loans like the rest of us.
I see the Herald is continuing in its quest to make Bennett look as bad as possible by suggesting she is vindictive – quoting Sue Bradford:
“The National Government is sending out a loud message that if any unemployed person or beneficiary dares to speak in public about issues that affect them personally, the Government will use all its power to discredit and humiliate them,” Ms Bradford said, referring also to the case of Bruce Burgess .”
Actually, the government is sending out the message that those who attack its policies should probably have their facts straight before starting. And Bradford appear to have forgotten that the previous administration’s main mode of defense was entirely ad hominem.
The Herald also suggests Bennett is stupid, by emphasising she checked the privacy website before releasing the information. In reality, one would expect the privacy website to be able to provide reasonable advice, though, admittedly, she would probably have been better off speaking to a crown lawyer. The advice would have been no more sound, but it would have been a better look.
The Blogosphere, as I have mentioned is highly polarised on this issue, with all the right wing blogs crowing about yet another Labour attack gone wrong. The left are all up in arms about privacy issues with Tim Selwyn even calling for Bennetts resignation (not going to happen, Tim. Key has already added his support for her move – good luck on the no confidence debate). It is like the two parties are not even talking about the same event.
I would agree with Colin Espiner on this one, and ask really “what’s the big deal?” Colin correctly points out the Labour would have released the same information, but covertly, leaking it to a journalist or two, rather than releasing it officially.
This means that, essentially, Paula Bennett is being castigated by Labour for being upfront and forthright. My feeling is that Key should point this out in no uncertain terms, making sure that the public see the issues for what they really are. Hopefully, someone will actually lay a complaint with the commissioner, because, I am fairly certain, that she will find in Bennetts favour, her comments today, notwithstanding.
Related posts:
- Bennett Spam It’s the story that won’t die – or, rather, won’t...
- Toothless For those in the blogosphere who are getting excited about...
- Invalid Hysteria Paula Bennett has turned her attention to invalid beneficiaries. In...
- Two-edged Sword Beneficiary statistics are out again and, as usual, Labour attacks...
- Thuggery I don’t like thuggery. I blogged my disapproval of the...
Jul 29 09 8:19 am
Of interest: This post was published on the Herald online “your views” section. The strange thing about it is that it exceeds the character limit for posting in that section. The limit is 1200 characters, the post is 3,100 characters. Who is D-V of Wellington that they can get their post inserted against system limits at the Herald? Looks like the propaganda machine is running overtime.
Link here:
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2009/7/27/was-paula-bennett-right-release-income-details-two-solo-mothers/?c_id=1501154&objectid=10587070#message
Actual posting here:
“Lets put things into perspective:
1) No minister has the right to release any information without the express permission of the client. Privacy Act. Its law. There can be no justification for disclosure at all, regardless of what the information holds.
People here are making a dangerous mistake in using the released information as a justification for disclosure.
2) As to the actual amount of $715, bear in mind, this is to help clothe, feed, and house 3 (Three) people, not one.
Basic Weekly Expenses. (I’m guess-timating here as I am not in possession of all the facts.perhaps the kind minister would like to release the expenses of the client too?)
I think these are reasonable costs, no frills, just the bare necessities.
$300 Rent (small 2 bedroom place)
$200 Food (Food For 3 people)
$60 Petrol (Or transport)
$30 Phone (LandLine or Mobile)
$30 Electricity (or Gas)
$95 Misc (Misc expenses for example but not limited to: School Clothes/Shoes, Books, School excursions, and a hundred other things).
Not much left to put in the bank for that European Holiday.
This woman is bringing up 2 kids through school, who, in all probability, will go on to work and pay taxes. On top of that, its not as if she is saving it, the money goes back into our economy, and that money is taxed all the way down the line, so we get a big chunk of it back!
To all those high horse moral crusaders who are questioning the family circumstances, please, people in life are subject to many different factors, some of which are beyond their control. It is not our place to judge.
I am speaking from painful experience. 6 Months ago, my wife and I were successfully employed, making some good money. Working hard. Putting money in the bank. Enjoying life, getting ready to have kids, because we could afford it. I even paid cash for a sports car I had always wanted. And paying taxes. When the company we worked for closed overnight (owing pay), we were both out on our ear. Being well educated, experienced, we expected to back in employment with a week somewhere else, so we lived off savings. We cut back, to keep expenses down. Despite looking, applying, being interviewed, neither of us have had offers. 6 months later, the car and the savings are long gone, rent isn’t being paid, basic bills are barely covered.
Prior to this situation, I would have been shocked to even consider going to Work & Income for assistance. I used to think people on the benefit were no hoper, drug addicts, with 10 kids. In the end, we did, and receive $196 a week to help us through, for which I am, like 99% of beneficiaries, truly grateful.
While I would never wish a similar set of circumstances on anyone, its funny how a change of situation beyond your control can change your attitude and open your eyes. I am just very thankful that I live in a country where the people and government respect people that have fallen on hard times, or been dealt a bum hand, and help them through, helping them get back on their feet and preserving their dignity. We don’t need politicians undermining these principles by wrongfully disclosing private information for others to judge people by.”
Jul 29 09 7:14 pm
I’m not sure what to make of all this due to not having read enough about it but a couple of things are clear to me:
I am not comfortable with the thought that criticism of government policy should result in information that the same government has promised to keep private by way of the Privacy Act being made public in what appears to be a political move.
On the other hand if people are going to use the Privacy Act as a shield and claim they are impoverished when they are not while making a political criticism of a public policy holding up their personal income as part of their argument then I can see the case for laying on the table precisely what their financial state is.
I disagree with some bloggers who claim that because welfare = theft all rights possessed by beneficiaries are automatically suspended. I’d agree that taxes spent on things that the government should not be providing is theft, but it is theft on the part of the state, not on the part of the person in lawful receipt of the benefit. Regardless, even a thief does not forfeit all rights by virtue of stealing. Those rights that can be forfeited must be proportional and related to the crime and administered (preferably) by due process.
Madeleine´s last blog ..Auckland Bloggers Drinks
Jul 29 09 7:15 pm
That’s an interesting post, I.a M.. The commenter appears to completely overlook the fact that fuller is receiving well above the average wage for doing nothing at all. The fact that people still struggle to make ends meet on that amount is a matter of complete indifference in the context of Tertiary education funding.
Everyone at her “wage” level has to take out a student loan to go to university.
Jul 29 09 7:46 pm
Madeleine
I think your objection is a little theoretical. I say this for two reasons:
Firstly, there is clearly a precedent for ignoring the privacy act if the matter is in the public interest. If a patient of mine has a positive HIV test and refuses to inform his partner, I have reasonable grounds to tell the partner, despite this contravening the privacy act in other respects. You could argue that the newspaper article made this particular matter one of public interest. I note that Bennett restricted her announcement to data that was easily obtainable should the Herald have bothered to try, which brings me to my second point.
It is inconceivable that this information would have remained private for any length of time. The journalists should have asked in the first place and certainly should have made enquiries as to the normal beneficiary grant in the two women’s circumstances. It would have merely been a matter of time before one of the right wing blogs (Kiwiblog or Whale being the most likely) would have dug out the information. Any public spat that is not before the courts is fair game.
The real point of the above is that the information is not really private. It is a matter of public record exactly how much to which those two women are entitled.
Jul 29 09 8:28 pm
To look at the pretty pass we’ve come to, consider..
A working person on $40,000 with a family is paying tax to support someone on the DPB getting $50,000.
Or a person on the DPB getting $50,000 is studying to get a qualification to look after kindy kids and dropping $15,000- 20,000 in income?
It really isn’t a matter of what the person on the DPB gets but the relativity of that person to someone in work.. in this case a cruel joke and a sign of a society thats gone bonkers.
Bennett should get the Whistleblower Of The Decade Award for this exposure.
JC
Jul 29 09 10:28 pm
JC: Or a person on the DPB getting $50,000 is studying to get a qualification to look after kindy kids and dropping $15,000- 20,000 in income?
It’s a bit like some ACC “return to work” reports, where they suggest retraining someone into a a position where he will earn less that the money he is getting from ACC.
But then governments never did understand incentives.
Jul 31 09 11:19 am
I think Espiners point is flawed and commits the tu quoque fallacy of logic – two wrongs don’t make a right.
The exceptions in law that exist for lawful breaches of privacy do not apply to Bennett (on MandM I link to an expert at Victoria Law on that matter). Given this before we jump ahead to analyses of the political issues we should pause and ask how relevant these are in light of the fact we seem to have a government minister acting as if she is above the law.
The Privacy Act rightly or wrongly binds the state. The state imposed this law on itself. If the state does not like a law the state must first change it before acting contrary to it. Further the state must honour the contractual promises it makes to those it enters contracts with – beneficiaries and the promise to keep certain information private. If it does not like a term of the contract then it should not enter such contracts.
While I support many of the sentiments coming up in this debate I cannot support or turn a blind eye to the state’s actions in this instance.
Madeleine´s last blog ..The State is Not Above the Law: Bennett and the Beneficiaries