Ruck 'em!

I can't help but think there is huge missed opportunity in the debate surrounding the way Paula Bennett is bullying two women who have gone public with their criticisms of the government’s cuts to the Training Incentive Allowance.

If you're out of NZ or under a rock - our Minister of Social Development released details of the two women's benefit incomes (although it seems she got the numbers wrong) in response to their criticism. She is now unrepentant and her PM is backing her.

There's an issue around the appropriateness of a Minister of the Crown releasing personal details relating to the benefits paid to clients of her department without first seeking their permission or informing them of her intention. There's also a question about whether her actions amounted to a breach of the Privacy Act. She may also have misled Parliament (or the public) with her explanantions about whether or not she got advice before acting.

Predictably the blogs and news reports have veered from "she's a bully" to "bloody beneficiaries". I will be very interested to see if Labour's complaint to the Privacy Commissioner bears any fruit. I find the beneficiary bashing side of it all so reminiscent of a by gone era (Muldoonism, anyone?) but I am much more interested in the continued lack of informed debate.

I say lack of informed debate because not one media type has made an effort find out and explain exactly how our benefit system works or to find out how successful such support of education and training for beneficiaries can be.

I posted Elsewoman's comments about the DPB earlier. Such information would really help people understand that there simplyaren't the imagined hoards of solo mums out there trying to rip off hard working tax payers.

I'd also like to see some discussion of studies from Europe and Scandinavia that indicate the more support we provide to recipients of a range of benefits the less time they continue to draw that benefit.

But none of this will see the light of day in the New Zealand media. I don't know why. I suspect it's because the system is now simply not up to the research and investigation required to write such an article. News rooms are getting smaller and younger. There's neither the resources nor the expertise. Nor, I uspect, is there a will. Most journalists are just as prejudiced and uninformed as the rest of us and to begin the process of writing such an article one would need an open and enquiring mind and some knowlege of the issue to start with.

That's a shame. The vitriol about beneficiaries in comments to news stories and blogs is so 1970's. With a bit of help from media outlets we could at least progress the discussion.

I don't think Bennett intended to progress anything. She's now feigning horror at the level of abuse these two women have received but she'd have to be a moron not to have foreseen it. No, it was just old fashioned bullying from her. She didn't like being put on the spot and being accused of pulling up the ladder (she sold herself as a success story solo Mum in the election) and she went ad hominem on their arses. As she said on the telly - it was “a bit of a lesson for what happens if you go out there and put your story”.

And since no one in the news industry is interested in getting their eye back on the ball, the only option we're left with is to watch the other team play the woman. I have to admit I'm kinda enjoying watching a Tory sweat at the bottom of the ruck but I would really have been interested in seeing more of the broader game plan.