Month: July 2009

Latest political drama convulsing its way through the NZ political commentariat: the new Social Development Minister, Paula Bennett, has responded to criticism by violating the privacy of the critics.
Bennett announced the end of the Training Incentive Allowance, a payment given to beneficiaries going into study, the premise of course being that if they complete their study they’ll get off unemployment and into work. Two women receiving the TIA protested. The response from the Ministerial office was to hand to the media the particular details of the welfare payments received by these two women.
It’s an obvious diversionary tactic. While Bennett claimed that she just wanted to get all the information out there, this move was obviously designed to discredit the complainants. Sure enough, the talkback masses have leapt to the attack, saying that they have every right to know all the details about these dole bludgers and the tax money they receive.
We’re a long way from Mickey Savage‘s welfare state here. Much of NZ has adopted a framing of society that asserts the individual is the only meaningful unit on analysis; therefore, tax is theft, and social welfare programmes are morally irresponsible. This body is the current government’s core constituency, and this framing of society is the one they promote. Producing with such fanfare the welfare records of these women is more or less throwing them to the wolves, and expecting that the baying of the hounds will drown out their protests.
(Sharing this information is also illegal. Bennett’s parliamentary office staff will be in for some serious bollocking, I’m sure.)
Mostly, though, I think Paula Bennett just hasn’t thought any of this through. I actually believe her most recent comments, that she hates how personalised and ugly the debate has become. She wanted it to be personalised, of course, but she’s surprised by the venom she has unleashed, by the dirty psychology that has been exposed on every talkback radio station. Perhaps she senses now what sits underneath her party rhetoric; perhaps she will realise the extent to which her own worldview has been sold…
“She certainly put her viewpoint forward on how hard it will be for her to study next year. She had a compelling argument actually,” Bennett said.
…but probably not. The ability to reconcile to our own satisfaction the inconsistencies in our positions, between our professed beliefs and our behaviour, is the most precious skill of the political class. Even if she did think an apology was appropriate, she has clearly been directed from above not to offer one. Paula Bennett will likely learn nothing more from this than that she should surround herself with less-foolish advisors.
See also: Kiwipolitico on Uncitizens, David Slack at Public Address and the ensuing discussion

Rescission, in the insurance industry, is the practice of voiding the contract between the insurer and the policyholder when the policyholder would otherwise be due some money. I’ve been watching horrible tales of this practice in the US for a while and smugly telling people that we don’t have those problems here in NZ.
Well, our health insurers have learnt some lessons from the US apparently. Terminally ill Wayne Croft has had his policy cancelled because (the insurer alleges) he didn’t declare some pre-existing health conditions (all of which are minor, none of which relate to his cancer at all). Croft says he never tried to hide anything and did his best to be upfront. The icing on this sad cake is that Croft only recently switched insurers, because he was promised a better deal at Sovereign than he had at the other place where he had initially taken out insurance as an 18-year-old.
Crucial difference between here and the US: our public health system is still intact. That doesn’t make this any less reprehensible.
It’s clear to me that the insurer bears much more responsibility than they’re prepared to admit. They have all the power in the relationship, and that should properly impose responsibilities upon them. One form with a “declarations” box is simply not sufficient to claim due diligence has been performed, not when the stakes are this high for the policyholder. Forms are distinctly user-unfriendly, and lend themselves to distortion and omission even with goodwill and diligence. Sovereign has acted appallingly, and I hope the NZ public send a clear message to Sovereign and the health insurance industry that this is not acceptable behaviour in this country.
(It was satisfying to watch John Campbell go attack-dog on the Sovereign rep on his show last night. I watch Campbell about once a year, if that, and this was a good night to pick.)