Well, the week's gone by and I've had a little more time to think about P Bennett tar(ahem) and feather Fuller and Johnston.
I still find the action unsettling, and I was trying to work out why. I think it boils down to this:
Bennett asked her staff to dig up every fact she could about these people, and they did so quite easily.
She then looked at the information available SPECIFIC TO THESE PEOPLE and made a decision on what to reveal to sink their argument.
We can argue if what she revealed was legal or not, and whether these two deserved it or not, and perhaps also consider the role Labour had in promoting the issue, but the point remains Bennett called for a dossier and received it.
That's a fair amount of power, and it's pretty much one sided. I'm not even sure the information she provided is relevant to the debate about the value of helping train unemployed people. Irrespective of benefits received (providing they are received legally), a compelling case can be made to support the government's position on the cut backs without resorting to this form of debate.
Furthermore, the information Bennett released was accepted and widely broadcast quickly and efficiently. Were we even sure it was accurate information? It probably was this time around, but whilst the bulk of the public were happy to think that these people had lied by omission etc, have they stopped to consider the government is just as capable of playing the same game?
So what do I think?
In the end, it's perhaps merely disappointing than a fatal blow to democracy, because the reality is the government has so many legal avenues to effect the same result, and it would avail little to plug this particular gap. Bennett could have released this information in Parliament under privilege; leaked it via staff to a friendly reporter; talked generally about current DPB benefits and how they can exceed a salaried job; or cunningly forced the people to reveal the information themselves (which they had more or less done anyway).
Ultimately, the point is our Minister's can request any amount of information on citizens, obtain it easily, and then decide how best to use it or abuse it. Paula Bennett just pointed out the obvious really. I think it still stinks. It reminded me at least of one of the reasons I like a small government and a strong constitution. We don't have either.
-------------------------------
I say as much over at MandM: P Bennett: Tar and Feather, Fire Away
And here's the Blog Post Title reference:
I still find the action unsettling, and I was trying to work out why. I think it boils down to this:
Bennett asked her staff to dig up every fact she could about these people, and they did so quite easily.
She then looked at the information available SPECIFIC TO THESE PEOPLE and made a decision on what to reveal to sink their argument.
We can argue if what she revealed was legal or not, and whether these two deserved it or not, and perhaps also consider the role Labour had in promoting the issue, but the point remains Bennett called for a dossier and received it.
That's a fair amount of power, and it's pretty much one sided. I'm not even sure the information she provided is relevant to the debate about the value of helping train unemployed people. Irrespective of benefits received (providing they are received legally), a compelling case can be made to support the government's position on the cut backs without resorting to this form of debate.
Furthermore, the information Bennett released was accepted and widely broadcast quickly and efficiently. Were we even sure it was accurate information? It probably was this time around, but whilst the bulk of the public were happy to think that these people had lied by omission etc, have they stopped to consider the government is just as capable of playing the same game?
So what do I think?
In the end, it's perhaps merely disappointing than a fatal blow to democracy, because the reality is the government has so many legal avenues to effect the same result, and it would avail little to plug this particular gap. Bennett could have released this information in Parliament under privilege; leaked it via staff to a friendly reporter; talked generally about current DPB benefits and how they can exceed a salaried job; or cunningly forced the people to reveal the information themselves (which they had more or less done anyway).
Ultimately, the point is our Minister's can request any amount of information on citizens, obtain it easily, and then decide how best to use it or abuse it. Paula Bennett just pointed out the obvious really. I think it still stinks. It reminded me at least of one of the reasons I like a small government and a strong constitution. We don't have either.
-------------------------------
I say as much over at MandM: P Bennett: Tar and Feather, Fire Away
And here's the Blog Post Title reference: