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

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.

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

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.

Everyone at her “wage” level has to take out a student loan to go to university.