Island Life: Good on ya, Paula
491 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
I wonder if Privacy-Gate will die a quick death now one of the women concerned has told Checkpoint she really doesn't care about the privacy issues. Because some of the stuff in the blogosphere has got silly.
The Standard has even managed to find a Weatherston angle to the story.
And apparently some bloggers are posting Privacy Act disclaimers on their post out of genuine fear. I thought it was a joke...
-
You'll notice that the last example in the ministerial guidance talks about a "dispute" with a department. That's different from a disagreement with a government policy. For instance, if somebody complains that a WINZ worker told them to bugger off, it might be legitimate to disclose that the complainant had called the worker a "stupid ugly ginger cunt" first.
It doesn't legitimise using private data to attack political opponents. But if that *is* fair game, can I put an OIA request in for John Key's tax return?
-
It doesn't legitimise using private data to attack political opponents. But if that *is* fair game, can I put an OIA request in for John Key's tax return?
Of course you can.
Not only that, but there's nothing in the Privacy Act will stop them releasing it to you.
-
@I/S
So, is having the right parents a matter of luck, or hard work and intelligence?
I can't speak for you, but in my case it's entirely down to their impeccable good taste ;-P
@ DeepRed
You can easily come across millionaire yobbos, as well as cosmopolitan bohemians living on an oily rag.
Mmmm yes, but they're very much in the minority. I'm talking about *gag* "middle New Zealand", the people with the mortgage almost paid off, a couple of cars, maybe an annual holiday to Fiji. A generation ago they'd have been glad to see others being raised to their level, regardless of how they got there.
Now, as others have commented, they can seemingly only feel a sense of worth if they stamp on the fingers of those on the lower rungs of the ladder. And not just stamp quietly, either, but smirk knowingly at their "class mates" (TM me) as they bark loudly about how the "bludgers" are trying - and failing - to rise above their station.
Politics must wear some of the blame, as must the media, but they're only reflecting and amplifying what's there, I'm afraid. It seems we're becoming an ugly lot.
-
Of course you can.
Not only that, but there's nothing in the Privacy Act will stop them releasing it to you.
Yes, but I can't imagine any Dept releasing that, given that privacy is a ground for withholding under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA.
-
If Paula Bennett has a computer terminal in her office that gives her access to all beneficiaries' details, does that mean she can check names of people commenting in blogs like this, see whether we are beneficiaries or get any other welfare assistance, and release our details if she feels like it?
-
If Paula Bennett has a computer terminal in her office that gives her access to all beneficiaries' details, does that mean she can check names of people commenting in blogs like this, see whether we are beneficiaries or get any other welfare assistance, and release our details if she feels like it?
The Minister has the right to see any information she wishes about her portfolio. It's her and her staff's role to determine whether it is ethical or not to request info about individual cases, and whether it's legal to release it. But usually, what the Minister requests, the Minister gets.
-
Geez Rex Widderstrom - I'm not sure about where you come from but I am part of a large whanau that includes Maori, Pakeha, tauiwi, & very recent incomers. Some of us *are* middleclass by your description (not me, hardarse working writer here) -but none of them follow your
crude smirking & stamping & barking "class mates." Maybe you come originally from de middleclass? I come from the working class, and we are all still very proud that we *are* working class.I.e: we work for our living and we are happy & PROUD that we do-
-
(Which statement comes with a stratum of total contempt for all those who are born to money and do nothing except indulge themselves & whims with it-)
-
3410,
The Minister has the right to see any information she wishes about her portfolio. It's her and her staff's role to determine whether it is ethical or not to request info about individual cases, and whether it's legal to release it. But usually, what the Minister requests, the Minister gets.
But, if true, we're not talking about *requests* at all, but instead a kind of unlimited access with no record of it, which is, IMO, open to abuse.
If Paula Bennett has a computer terminal in her office that gives her access to all beneficiaries' details, does that mean she can check names of people commenting in blogs like this, see whether we are beneficiaries or get any other welfare assistance, and release our details if she feels like it?
I think you've illustrated very well why it's ridiculous to think that such actions as yesterday's are at all acceptable.
-
It doesn't legitimise using private data to attack political opponents. But if that *is* fair game, can I put an OIA request in for John Key's tax return?
Of course you can.
Not only that, but there's nothing in the Privacy Act will stop them releasing it to you.
Yes, but I can't imagine any Dept releasing that, given that privacy is a ground for withholding under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA.
I think Part 4 (2281 to 89) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 trumps the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act. It sets out the extremely limited circumstances in which tax information may be release, to whom and for what reason.
Basically a taxpayers rights to secrecy overules most things. -
oops .. make that Part 4 (ss81 to 89) of the Tax Administration Act ...
-
Yes I saw that too.I am glad JC said it was stingy in light of the private schools getting 35 mil, and this was only 2.5 to keep the status quo and only 33 mil to bring all other schools in line with these about to be cut.
It certainly shows the government's priorities, doesn't it? Money for the rich, but not for those in genuine need...
-
But, if true, we're not talking about *requests* at all, but instead a kind of unlimited access with no record of it, which is, IMO, open to abuse.
My understanding is that the MSD database logs all queries and leaves an audit trail.
The usual way for a Minister to enquire about a particular person is to request a briefing from the Ministry, which would mean it would go through the usual briefing logging and preparation process, and be sent to the Minister's office in hard copy and email. But if the Minister demands info immediately (i.e. within 5 minutes), I can't see any departmental staffer insisting that she wait for a formal briefing to arrive.
The issue, IMHO, is not about whether the Minister should have the right or ability to access information about individuals within their portfolio. The issue is about the Minister having the judgement to know when to request information, and how to use that information ethically.
I think that Bennett was well within her right to find out the women's situations from her Ministry, and pretty much any former (and current) Minister and their advisory team would do the same thing. But choosing how to use that information is where Bennett's judgement is lacking seriously. You just don't release it publicly in that way.
-
I think Part 4 (2281 to 89) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 trumps the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act. It sets out the extremely limited circumstances in which tax information may be release, to whom and for what reason.
And is in turn trumped by s48 of the OIA. Such a request could of course be refused under s9(2)(a) (privacy) or s18(c)(i) as releasing the information would be contrary to another enactment - but it does not have to be. And where information is released in good faith under the OIA, no proceedings, civil or criminal, can be taken.
That's not to say it would be ethical. But it would be legal. And IMHO, this arrangement - you can withhold, but you do not have to - is one of the strengths of the Act.
-
I think that Bennett was well within her right to find out the women's situations from her Ministry, and pretty much any former (and current) Minister and their advisory team would do the same thing. But choosing how to use that information is where Bennett's judgement is lacking seriously. You just don't release it publicly in that way.
Serious question here: So it would have been better if someone in her office had just happened to pass it around the Press Gallery, on a non-attributable basis of course? Or perhaps she should have just gotten up in the House, made shit up under privilege and sat down again secure in the knowledge that there would be precisely zero comeback?
-
3410,
My understanding is that the MSD database logs all queries and leaves an audit trail.
Well, that's something.
-
It certainly shows the government's priorities, doesn't it? Money for the rich, but not for those in genuine need...
Because everyone who attends a private school is a dirty rich prick, right Idiot?
-
Serious question here: So it would have been better if someone in her office had just happened to pass it around the Press Gallery, on a non-attributable basis of course?
No of course not. I think a simple "not all of the information is in the public domain" line from Bennett would have been the most ethical way for her to proceed. If the journos want to make it a story, they can find out general entitlements and deduce what benefits the women were receiving.
Or perhaps she should have just gotten up in the House, made shit up under privilege and sat down again secure in the knowledge that there would be precisely zero comeback?
Which she did do in question time today.
-
Totally OT but somehow resonating for me-
National WILL NOT support Matariki as a public holiday.
Riiight.
We've got you lot sussed.
Again.
-
Because everyone who attends a private school is a dirty rich prick, right Idiot?
Not at all Craig,but if one student of any age at a private school cannot attend said school because $35 mil isn't going into funding for private schools, that child can still attend any public school.A pathetic (by comparison) amount of 2.5 mil being removed from units for disabled children that is already in our system could be a make or break situation for an education that all the rest of us have had.It is stingy and the most inconsiderate tolleyism yet.How much for the cycleway again? Wont that be exciting for MS and Cerebal Palsy kids.C'mon man, have a heart.This is plainly cruel.It's about some kids quality of life.
-
3410,
Because everyone who attends a private school is a dirty rich prick, right Idiot?
No, not at all. Any hardworking, ambitious New Zealander should be able to come up with $30,000 pa for something so important.
-
James, if you get a chance, check your mail.:)
-
Because everyone who attends a private school is a dirty rich prick, right Idiot?
I think it is utterly disingenuous to pretend that the children of the rich are more deserving of government assistance than disabled children. The former can always get a good education at a state school (though they may have to mingle with the peasants and won't get an early start in the old-boy network). The latter need help regardless.
-
Totally OT but somehow resonating for me-
National WILL NOT support Matariki as a public holiday.
And they support slavery.
Oh yes, they said they disapprove of it. but when push comes to shove, they're unwilling to actually do anythign about it.
Pricks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.