AUCKLAND ACTION AGAINST POVERTY
Media release Thursday 31 January 2013
MSD Role in Contraception Must Go

Low MSD uptake figures confirm that the contraception programme instigated as part of National’s welfare reforms is all about stigmatising woman on benefits, rather than any genuine kind of support, says Auckland Action Against Poverty spokesperson Sarah Thompson.

“This policy is simply another weapon in the war against women on benefits, implemented as a way of garnering the beneficiary bashing vote in time for the next election.

“It's a deep irony that the outright misogyny of recent welfare reforms, including this one, has been lead by two women- Paula Bennett and Paula Rebstock.

“This blaming and shaming tactic can be seen in other proposed policies which attempt to paint beneficiaries as drug users and criminals who don't care for their children.

“Involvement by MSD in the provision of long term contraception should be scrapped immediately on both ethical and financial grounds.

“The state should have no role in using its coercive influence to harass women in regards to their reproductive options.

“The Family Planning Association already provide free contraceptive services to women up to 22, and charge $5 for Community Service Card holders over that age.

“One useful thing Bennett could do would be to subsidise the FPA so that their health checks are free to all those holding CSC cards, and as cheap as possible for everyone else”.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Arguably Reassuring: Inspector-General Finds GCSB "Arguably" Legal

Of the 88 individuals:

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
More>>