Oh dear, Paula Bennett has released personal information on two Labour lackeys that were making their case for their right to receive more entitlements from the tax payers, via the Government.
I admit there is some relevance to knowing what those current entitlements already are, at least in a generic sense. However, I am very uncomfortable the Government using their power in this way.
The information was not actually theirs to release. It's not theirs to give.
In the same way the Government should not have the right to request a tax audit from the IRD, or declare how much tax a person pays, simply because that person takes the government to task on policy. The ends do not justify the means, and the Government could have used many other legitimate and moral approaches to debating with these Labour flunkies.
Perhaps that's the other annoying part of this sorry affair. A principled and thoughtful government could still have debated this issue and exposed the underlying sense of greed and entitlement behind the push to get something for nothing, at the expense of other families that receive the same amount of money, but do it the hard way - having a job. It's a tricky thing to balance entitlements against collecting the tax needed to pay them. We can see the disparity when the government suggests they need to cut superannuation even while others seek to get more than $50,000 a year from the government to "make ends meet". But that is besides the point of the post.
If I could contrast the previous government with National, it seems to me Labour seemed to understand the principles, and were willing to deliberately break them. They were shameless, arrogant, and ultimately dangerous. As opposition, they will have no trouble in ignoring the hypocrisy of their stance, and it will not be National's fault should they ignore Labour's howls for blood. Whilst they might dismiss Labour's opinion on this matter, I hope they slow down and listen to others.
On the other side, National seem not to understand principles, and instead react to issues. Bennett's actions are partially defensible only when looking at the issue at hand - combating heavily biased information pushed by some half baked Labour strategy fronting a couple of useful pawns to take the heat.
However, I expect better from the government than mere reaction. This is another example, like the smacking legislation, where the government just doesn't get it.
Unfortunately, acting this way has allowed the opposition to take attention away from what was an important debate.
Equally, whilst this issue of citizen privacy versus the State, these are not the sort of issues that necessarily need to be addressed by more laws. It's the kind of issue that our Ministers of Parliament need to realise automatically when they cross the line, and correct this lapse of judgment accordingly. The fact that our Ministers have lost this capability is why inevitably we will fall back on the law.
All I see here is two sets of people both arguing for entitlements they appear to believe are automatic rights. We can handle the first group without needing to give the government undeserved power.
The thing about the VRWC, is that it isn't vast, and its hardly a conspiracy. Even the definition "right wing" is arbitrary, being used more as a supposed slur from the left. That being said, the VRWC is generally united in it's desire for small government, personal freedom and protection from the destructive forces in society. The conservative right tend to take a different road than the liberal right, but at least we can respect differing opinions, when they are not motivated by the authoritarian spirit-crushing politics from the left. It is in that spirit I comment on the issue of the day, with a view at odds with several of my fellow bloggers! My fellow members of the VRWC - I invite you to attempt to change my mind on this matter, or show some agreement. Either way, I figure this is an important issue, and welcome your comments.
I admit there is some relevance to knowing what those current entitlements already are, at least in a generic sense. However, I am very uncomfortable the Government using their power in this way.
The information was not actually theirs to release. It's not theirs to give.
In the same way the Government should not have the right to request a tax audit from the IRD, or declare how much tax a person pays, simply because that person takes the government to task on policy. The ends do not justify the means, and the Government could have used many other legitimate and moral approaches to debating with these Labour flunkies.
Perhaps that's the other annoying part of this sorry affair. A principled and thoughtful government could still have debated this issue and exposed the underlying sense of greed and entitlement behind the push to get something for nothing, at the expense of other families that receive the same amount of money, but do it the hard way - having a job. It's a tricky thing to balance entitlements against collecting the tax needed to pay them. We can see the disparity when the government suggests they need to cut superannuation even while others seek to get more than $50,000 a year from the government to "make ends meet". But that is besides the point of the post.
If I could contrast the previous government with National, it seems to me Labour seemed to understand the principles, and were willing to deliberately break them. They were shameless, arrogant, and ultimately dangerous. As opposition, they will have no trouble in ignoring the hypocrisy of their stance, and it will not be National's fault should they ignore Labour's howls for blood. Whilst they might dismiss Labour's opinion on this matter, I hope they slow down and listen to others.
On the other side, National seem not to understand principles, and instead react to issues. Bennett's actions are partially defensible only when looking at the issue at hand - combating heavily biased information pushed by some half baked Labour strategy fronting a couple of useful pawns to take the heat.
However, I expect better from the government than mere reaction. This is another example, like the smacking legislation, where the government just doesn't get it.
Unfortunately, acting this way has allowed the opposition to take attention away from what was an important debate.
Equally, whilst this issue of citizen privacy versus the State, these are not the sort of issues that necessarily need to be addressed by more laws. It's the kind of issue that our Ministers of Parliament need to realise automatically when they cross the line, and correct this lapse of judgment accordingly. The fact that our Ministers have lost this capability is why inevitably we will fall back on the law.
All I see here is two sets of people both arguing for entitlements they appear to believe are automatic rights. We can handle the first group without needing to give the government undeserved power.
The thing about the VRWC, is that it isn't vast, and its hardly a conspiracy. Even the definition "right wing" is arbitrary, being used more as a supposed slur from the left. That being said, the VRWC is generally united in it's desire for small government, personal freedom and protection from the destructive forces in society. The conservative right tend to take a different road than the liberal right, but at least we can respect differing opinions, when they are not motivated by the authoritarian spirit-crushing politics from the left. It is in that spirit I comment on the issue of the day, with a view at odds with several of my fellow bloggers! My fellow members of the VRWC - I invite you to attempt to change my mind on this matter, or show some agreement. Either way, I figure this is an important issue, and welcome your comments.