‘Social Investment’ is simply mass surveillance of beneficiaries designed to limit the neoliberal welfare state even more


It’s nice to see the media catching up with the concerns TDB were putting forward last year regarding the scam that is ‘Social Investment’.

‘Social Investment’ is simply mass surveillance of beneficiaries designed to limit the neoliberal welfare state even more.

Bill English who is pushing a hard right wing religious crusade against welfare is using ‘social investment’ as a pretence to help the poorest while ripping away welfare for everyone who isn’t the poorest.

It’s a sick joke using the crisis of the worst to deny those not so desperate any state help whatsoever.

- Sponsor Promotion -

The corporate mainstream media of course haven’t gotten their head around that part of Social Investment yet and won’t even acknowledge that big data is reliant on mass surveillance powers that English has been quietly giving his crusade.

English will intrusively spy on the poor to justify ending Welfare for any but the very worst cases.

It’s a scam to kill off Government Obligations by redefining who the most needy are. It’s sad the corporate mainstream media and most political pundits refuse to recognise that.


  1. definitely. People really need to read up more at the daily blog. I’m in to minds posting this in text form only with no links at the standard so they’ve got something real to read

  2. I guess we only have his word that they wont drug test anyone who would admit to having addiction problems with this “confidential”social investment anonymous database?

  3. They don’t collect data. They have no agreed measures for what constitutes ‘poverty’ in this country. Nor any ‘no lower than this’ measure. Of course not. There might be too many in the cobweb meshes needing real assistance.

    The pawns in WINZ will be making it up as they go along even more than they do now.

    The Righteous will be yelping about ‘no real poverty! We have no slums or Really Poor People!’ (Please do not provide evidence to the contrary.)

    It’s another of those vague generalised guilt and rage inducing unkillable memes. We do seem to love them.

  4. WTF is this investment approach about, has anybody got any hard data? I doubt it, as the MSD and government have withheld endless info, we have half a dozen of complaints before the Ombudsman because of this BS.


    I thought that enough people here could read:
    ‚In the expectation of recovery’, Faulkner, Centre for Welfare Reform, Scrib
    (criticism of biopsychosocial model, Aylward et al)

    The useless, BS Ombudsmen are mere word and no action:

    This is what MSD have been doing:


    The truth about the lies propagated by MSD:
    (new current PDF with post, 19.09.16)


    (Current 19.09.16)

    As nobody bothers doing their own research, or reading the above, MSD and the government get away with lies and spin, and the MSM propagate it, so it is sold as “truth”.

    What a stupid country and society this is, NZ Inc..

  5. I’m not even sure that referring beneficiaries to charity groups is legal. Yes I know your post isn’t about that…but that’s what I’m thinking.

    The Social Securities Act is meant to be safety net legislation, a final safeguard to ensure the worst off among us don’t end up constantly pissed over.

    So, why is it that there is nobody questioning the legality of the safety net referring people elsewhere? Do Work and Income have any duty of care towards these people? What if they go to a charity and are sexually or financially exploited, humiliated, or have their privacy breached? Are Work and Income liable? If they have no liability does it not seem inappropriate to anyone else that they refer people to outside organisations?

Comments are closed.