• Update: Govt makes it harder for beneficiaries to get off the benefit (Bennett releases income info)

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

• This is an update to my earlier post Govt makes it harder for beneficiaries to get off the benefit.

The story so far:

1. Two women went public, complaining about cuts in the Training Incentive Allowance that supposedly helps beneficiaries get off welfare by gaining qualifications (details in my earlier post).
2. Minister of Social Development Destruction Paula Bennett released details of the income of those two beneficiaries, citing advice from the Privacy Commissioner which, she claims, allowed her to release the information.

This post has five sections:

• Did Bennett comply with the Privacy Act (as interpreted by the Privacy Czar)?
• Is the income information actually relevant information?
• Is this governmental bullying?
• The Privacy Act is dangerous and this case sets a precedent
• Conclusions

Did Bennett comply with the Privacy Act (as interpreted by the Privacy Czar)?

The Privacy Czar’s advice to ministers says in part:

[Example #]8. In making allegations against a Department, an individual has released considerable personal detail to the news media. The Minister wishes to respond to the allegations using those details, but wants to add some further detail in order to answer specific allegations.

By releasing a large amount of personal information to the media, the individual is taking the risk that unfavourable publicity could result. If the Minister releases only information which is relevant to the issues raised by the individual, that person may not be able to claim that any particular harm was caused by the Minister’s disclosure rather than by the individual’s own disclosure. If the individual is not harmed, there would not be an interference with the individual’s privacy under section 66 of the Privacy Act.

In my humble opinion, using this as justification for releasing income details is marginal at best. I would not have said that these two released “considerable personal detail” (judging by this article).

Did Bennett release “only information which is relevant to the issues raised by the individual”? The NZ Herald quotes Jennifer Johnston as saying

“The DPB is a living, for which my children and I have been very grateful. But it does not afford an ability to save for these sorts of extra expenses. I was utterly dismayed to find out that the TIA had been canned.”

I cannot find a similar statement by Natasha Fuller, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, strictly speaking, Johnston at least raised the issue of her income and its insufficiency for funding training, so Bennett was compliant with the Privacy Czar’s advice.

Is this governmental bullying?

I believe so. The core issue here is the Training Incentive Allowance, but Bennett chose to release income details, and I am reminded of the “chilling effect” of the Electoral Finance Act. Remember that this sets a precedent, and a Minister could use the same justification for releasing income details of a wage earner or business owner.

Not PJ says

The details of my income are private because they’re a purely voluntary arrangement between me and my employer. They don’t concern anyone else. Those of Mses Fuller and Johnston on the other hand (and that of Ms Bennett, for that matter) concern everyone who has their pay packets raided by Inland Revenue to fund our gargantuan welfare state.

He has an excellent point, but I believe that the issue of restraint of governmental power is more important than the taxpayers’ right to know (I use that term very loosely) how much of their pay packet is going to Johnston and Fuller. In all situations the government has far too much information, and the public has little or none (asymmetry of information): we must not allow the state to abuse that knowledge/power more than they already do.

Is the income information actually relevant information?

Bennett is effectively saying “These women are receiving $X, therefore they don’t need the Training Incentive Allowance”. That is financial naivety of the highest order, and it is worrying when someone when someone who is supposed to be running the country thinks so simplistically.

The income information is not relevant information because it does not take into account the personal circumstances of these women: i.e., they may have medical or other problems that chew up a chunk of their income for reasons beyond their control. The release of effectively meaningless information supports my contention that this is governmental bullying.

The Privacy Act is dangerous and this case sets a precedent

Most people think that laws such as the Privacy Act and the Bill of Rights are good because they define their rights. They are in fact dangerous, because they restrict our rights to those which the government allows us to have. The advice to ministers from the Privacy Czar is a good example of this: if an individual raises issues in public then the door is wide open for the government to release private information. For example, a businessman could go to a newspaper and say “Inland Revenue is demanding weekly payments towards unpaid taxes that I cannot afford because my income is low. This is unreasonable and they’re pushing me towards bankruptcy”. Once he’s done so the door is wide open for the Minister of Inland Revenue Rape and Pillage to release that businessman’s income details and say “Of course he can afford the repayments demanded by Inland Revenue”.

Conclusions

New Zealand is a screwed up country (like all socialist democracies) and there is no “right answer” to the questions about privacy for beneficiaries and so on, because when everything is wrong then obviously nothing is right. In other words, when the foundations (the welfare state) are crooked the house (the answers to questions about the welfare state) will also be crooked.

I believe that the two primary issues here are:

1. Governmental abuse of its ability to gather information at gun point
2. Destruction of the right to privacy via the Privacy Act

What are your thoughts regarding this thorny situation?

~~~~~~~~~~

• Government dropping DPB work rule

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

The National government had planned to get beneficiaries (welfare recipients) on the Domestic Purposes Benefit to work part time when their youngest child turned six. In earlier posts I said that this idea would backfire and it placed homeschooling beneficiaries in grave danger of having to send their children to the state brainwashing camps called state schools.

Now the government has dropped the plan, for a daft reason:

…yesterday Social Development Minister Paula Bennett confirmed it was on the backburner because people were being made redundant and jobs were in short supply.

I believe that this is a good move, for two reasons:

• as I said in my earlier post, beneficiaries would have just had more children to to avoid the work rule, resulting in more fatherless children, more life-long problems for those children, more crime, more costs for taxpayers, and more multigenerational welfare dependency
• those beneficiaries who wish to homeschool will be free to do so. Not only will those children be free of state indoctrination, but it is reasonable to assume that the sort of parents willing to do the hard yards of homeschooling are less likely to raise future beneficiaries

Why do I agree with this move when I believe that the state should not provide welfare? Because the DPB work rule would have simply increased the number of people dependent on welfare: dropping the rule is the lesser of the evils.

Related posts:

• Paula Bennett claims ownership of all New Zealand children

• A biblical perspective on home schooling and state schooling

What do you think about the dropping of the work rule?

~~~~~~~~~~

Will National force homeschooling beneficiaries to go to work?

In an earlier post I wrote about National’s plan to force beneficiaries to find work once their children reach school age, and I showed how this ill-conceived idea will backfire.

I was concerned that beneficiaries who wished to homeschool might not be allowed to do so, so I emailed Paula Bennett, the new Minister of Social Development (Minister of Social Welfare in old-speak). Today I have received a letter from her which says in part:

This is a tricky situation for a classical liberalist. On one hand I am opposed to taxpayer-funded welfare, and on the other hand I am opposed to state education that indoctrinates children and undermines families.

On balance I believe that beneficiaries should be allowed to homeschool for the following reasons¹:

1) it’s better for the taxpayers: paying a benefit is cheaper than sending a child to school plus paying a partial benefit to a parent who is working part time².

2) a child that is homeschooled is more likely to benefit society than one who is schooled by the state, because a child who is taught well at home has better academic results, more maturity and is better when it comes to logic and independent thought. They do not turn into adults who continually grasp the mammaries of the nanny state³.

3) as I said in the post linked to above, the state uses schools to undermine families, and undermining families harms children as well as the rest of society.

4) the fundamental issue here is whether or not children of beneficiaries will be forced into state schools, and I believe that parents should be free to raise their children as they see fit and without the liberal left propaganda that is fed to children in schools …

As Bennett’s letter says, she is still considering whether or not to force the children of beneficiaries into state schools. I strongly urge you to make a stand for freedom and email her or write to her, stating that you wish to see an exemption to the work rule for beneficiaries who desire to homeschool⁴. It helps to give reasons for your belief, a paragraph will suffice.

Click here for Paula Bennett’s email form.

A stamp is not required for snail mail:

Hon Paula Bennett
Parliament Office
Private Bag 18888
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6160

What are your thoughts regarding beneficiaries who wish to homeschool?

When you’ve written to Paula Bennett please post a copy of the letter in a comment or send a copy to me via the contact page.

**********

Click here for a biblical perspective on home schooling and state schooling.

**********

1) there is no perfect solution in our present society, so I am focusing on the lesser of the evils.

2) this statement is based upon a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

3) this statement is based upon my personal observations of children who are homeschooled.

4) The state is arrogant enough to police parents who homeschool via the Education Review Office, so beneficiaries won’t find that homeschooling is an easy way to avoid work.

Paula Bennett claims ownership of all New Zealand children

Having Paula Bennett as Minister of Social Development and Employment (Minister of Social Welfare in old-speak) is a shameless marketing ploy by John Key. A segment of the population swung away from Labour at the election and Key wants to keep them swung his way with a Maori who is a former beneficiary. This also helps to reduce the white-guy-in-a-starched-shirt image of National. The offices of Work and Income New Zealand (the social welfare department) are dominated by Maori and Pacific Island women, so having one at the top fits in well.

The NZ Herald sounds like a union/communist newspaper when describing Bennett:

Twenty years ago, Paula Bennett was a teenage Maori solo mum trying to get off the DPB by waitressing at a truck stop and washing dishes at a retirement home.

Note the reverse racism here: the Herald mentions that she’s Maori, but you’ll never see an article lauding the fact that someone is Pakeha/white. Of course not, because Pakeha are the oppressors and the Maori are triumphing despite this, so their victories must be mentioned.

This same article also show’s Bennett’s Socialists/Marxist beliefs and her patronising paternalism (maternalism?):

She [Bennett] expects her associate minister, Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, to be instrumental.

“She and I share a belief that all children are our children. That means the good, the naughty, the broken and the cherished. We’ve talked about that many times, and I’ve got no doubt that’s the understanding we will bring to the role. She will play a big role. She’s got experience and some really firm views on what we need to do for Maori people.”

“She and I share a belief that all children are our children”. How dare she claim ownership of New Zealand’s children! The arrogance of this is breathtaking: children belong to parents and parents alone. It’s all part of the Social/Marxist agenda of controlling children and undermining parental authority.

This is a variation on “it takes a village to raise a child” (click here to view an example from Barack Obama) and is no better than Sue Bradford’s arrogance (click here and here for examples).

We have a new government but the underlying attitudes haven’t changed. The Socialists/Marxists who are running this country should keep their filthy claws away from our children.