By: Felix Marwick | Friday, August 17, 2012 6:00 AM

If there's one thing I've noticed about politics, it's that the only consistent thing about it is its inconsistency.

A perfect illustration of this is the very divergent strategies that appear to apply to the issue of privacy.

Privacy breaches at ACC, for example, are a scourge on the face of the public service.

ACC Minister Judith Collins has made it a priority for the corporation to clean up its act in the face of repeated accidental releases of personal client information.

Not good enough and unacceptable are among the words Ms Collins has used to describe the situation from her office on the sixth floor of the Beehive.

Yet just one floor down a very different approach is being taken by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.

She's neither resiled, nor apologised, for her decision in 2010 to release the welfare income details of beneficiary Natasha Fuller.

At the time Ms Fuller made public criticism of the Government's decision to cut training allowances for beneficiaries - what eventuated was the public finding out exactly what entitlements she was receiving.

Both the Privacy Commissioner and the Office of Human Rights Proceedings are of the opinion Ms Bennett breached Ms Fuller's privacy.

The Minister begs to differ, and hasn't ruling out taking similar steps should a similar situation arise in the future.

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English has made the argument being if someone chooses to enter a political debate, they have to expect some scrutiny of their position.

It's a fair point, but is using the full weight of the state to reveal someone's personal details they way to do it?

Paula Bennett could have easily asked if Natasha Fuller was prepared to reveal her income. Ms Fuller's response could have been used to judge the weight of her arguments

So what can we take from all of this?

A cynic would say it shows politicians are happy to change the rules when it suits them.

But what it does appear to reveal is that there are two rules - if you're a Government agency you mess with people's privacy at your peril, if you're a minister it's not such a big deal.

One would think even our politicians might consider that a double standard.