Paula Bennett - Beneficiary Basher
29.04.10 I was appalled at the behaviour of Paula Bennett last year when she released the benefit details of two beneficiaries who had the temerity to complain that the benefit that Bennett had in gaining qualifications had been cut. Last July she released the income details of solo mothers Jennifer Johnston and Natasha Fuller. She thought the Privacy Commissioner's website permitted her to do this.

What was her motivation? They had criticised the Government's decision to scrap the training incentive allowance, the scheme that allowed Paula Bennett to gain a qualification and apparently get herself off a benefit.

I always thought the merits of a privacy complaint were quite clear. A Minister should not be permitted to publicly embarrass a beneficiary by releasing the amount they received just because they raised a legitimate concern about Government Policy. This sort of thing might happen in Zimbabwe but in New Zealand?

I was amazed that the complaint took so long to process. I have always thought the merits were clear.

Principle 10 of the Privacy Act 1993 states:

"An agency that holds personal information that was obtained in connection with one purpose shall not use the information for any other purpose unless the agency believes, on reasonable grounds,—
(a) that the source of the information is a publicly available publication; or
(b) that the use of the information for that other purpose is authorised by the individual concerned; or
(c) that non-compliance is necessary—
(i) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or
(ii) for the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
(iii) for the protection of the public revenue; or
(iv) for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal (being proceedings that have been commenced or are reasonably in contemplation); or
(d) that the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to—
(i) public health or public safety; or
(ii) the life or health of the individual concerned or another individual; or
(e) that the purpose for which the information is used is directly related to the purpose in connection with which the information was obtained; or
(f) that the information—
(i) is used in a form in which the individual concerned is not identified; or
(ii) is used for statistical or research purposes and will not be published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual concerned; or
(g) that the use of the information is in accordance with an authority granted under section 54."

Unless beneficiaries are deemed to have waived all rights to the state just because they receive a benefit or unless there is a missing "(h)" that says "if the individual is a beneficiary this section does not apply" the disclosure is clearly in breach.

Bomber Bradbury puts it well:

"It is disgusting that Paula is still in her position as Minster of Social Development. Bennett’s outrageous misuse of power to publish the personal details of two beneficiaries who complained about cost cutting of a benefit Paula herself used when she was a solo mum at uni is so utterly wrong it is difficult to see how she’s still in her role."

Paula is a disgrace and should go.
If you want to get the defence if it can be called that it is here. Paula uses the type of language used by those who have spent too much time in Wellington.

She does not deny meeting with Natasha Fuller. She seems to want to protect Natasha's privacy rights. If only she felt this way last year!
Mickey Savage