Paula Bennett and Viliami Halaholo
January 31st, 2009 at 3:38 pm by David FarrarI guess the Sunday papers tomorrow will have more details around Paula Bennett’s family relationship with Villami Halaholo as she has released today two letters she wrote in 2007 and mid 2008 to the Parole Board on his behalf.
John Key has also done a release, and sees nothing improper with her advocacy when she was an Opposition MP. However he has chided Bennett for not revealing the letters to him last week when this issue first went public.
So there are two issues here – the letters, and the revealing of them. Let’s quote from the letters:
My daughter is no fool and she started laying down the law pretty heavily on him. If he wanted to be with her then he needed to make some pretty major changes in his life – and he started to. For every couple of steps forward in the early days he would take the odd one back and the night of the incident (that he has since been convicted for) has been his biggest step back ever and has in retrospect been a positive turning point in his life. It would have been easy for us to turn our back on him at that stage and leave him to grow up in jail, but we can be pretty stubborn ourselves, and my daughter and I believed that it was a complete error of judgment on his behalf, he could move forward, but it was up to him. He moved into my residence at that time as a border and he committed himself to staying out of trouble, obeying the law and finding work.
And he has done that. For the last two years he has made significant and consistent changes in his life. Viliami got himself a job. At first he was temping and working in a factory, when this temporary job came to an end, he went out and found another one and has been working overtime and what ever hours he can to provide for his family.
If he has gone from breaking the law to being in employment and working hard, that is a good thing. And you would expect Paula as the baby’s grandmother to want the father in the family, if he has turned himself around. Of course we don’t know if he has behaved in prison, but imagine this will be known to the Parole Board.
So the issue is more the process one of not revealing the advocacy after the initial stories last weekend. And this can be a headache because there is nothing worse than deciding how to respond to an issue, if you do not know all the facts.
I’m a believer in taking a fairly harsh inquisitorial role when “issues” arise. The way I would handle it is to have a staffer sit down with the affected persons and ask them everything they can think of. When did you first meet him? What exactly has he done? Who as affected? How often have you had to help him out? What letters have you ever written about him? Who knows about X? etc etc. Such a session may take some hours, but in my experience it is better to know too much than not enough.
In this case, the existence of the letters doesn’t seem particularly significant. It is what you would expect from family members, and being an MP is not a reason not to advocate. However being a Minister is such a reason, as they have executiye authority within the Government.
Related posts:
- More on Viliami Halaholo
- Why Can’t You Be Like Paula Bennett? – Guest Post by Tara te Heke
- Paula “tough lady” Bennett
- Paula confirmed as true Westie
January 31st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
But as you said David, she was not a minster or even in govt.. A non issue. It is not as if she is a member of a group of people who took a bung to help a criminal to get citizenship, and she is now answering questions. Unlike those sneaky fucks who are hiding from the media.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Its not a non issue if they keep reacting to media stories like this. The media will have a field day with that game.
Vote:I note Keys statement says “I encourage all of my Ministers to be upfront and open with me at all times,” – I trust that’s strike two
January 31st, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I wonder if Paula was a Labour MP there would be such a hullabaloo over Halaholo?
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
“For every couple of steps forward in the early days he would take the odd one back and the night of the incident”
so umm grievous bodily harm is an “incident”…
an “incident” is crashing your car… or breaking a window.. not beating someone half to death.
shes a loser. wont last the term as minister.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Jezuz H Christ on a bike. As the posters above say, this is a complete fucken beat by the contemptible upstarts at the Herald. No inquisition is necessary. Just tell them to fuck off.
Look- Barack Obama has attacked Rush Limbaugh. When are the so called right in NZ going to start attacking the left media?? The shit National takes in silence from these politically partisan arseholes at the Herald is unbelievable.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
It’s a pre-emptive strike by Bennett, and fair enough. In neither letter does she attempt to use her influence as an MP – rather she discloses her status, which puts her support into context.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
oh crap.. i just went up the road to get some vodka and had an “incident”.. i caved some dudes head in with a tyre iron…
ah well.. boys will be boys! as long as my gf lays down the law tonight, ill be fine
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
But as you said David, she was not a minster or even in govt.. A non issue. It is not as if she is a member of a group of people who took a bung to help a criminal to get citizenship, and she is now answering questions. Unlike those sneaky fucks who are hiding from the media.
What you say is true, her position is entirely defensible. It’s regrettable though. After a decade of Labour’s indifference to soaring crime levels, I think the electorate wants Ministers of the Crown to be taking a stauncher attitude towards punishment and prevention.
This kid is a violent criminal with form. There’s a victim here who deserves justice and a society here that needs protection. These two considerations far outweigh the Bennett family’s interests.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
This Minister is a sick joke in any government that is determined to make New Zealand a safer place for the public.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 4:48 pm
“The shit National takes in silence from these politically partisan arseholes at the Herald is unbelievable.”
National took this shit because it knew the Herald was laying a trap.
Right from the start I could see the paper (and Labour) knew something and that they took a reasonable guess that the headstrong Bennett would balls it up. She did, but the National team were good enough to keep working on it and get to the truth. (FFS, somebody get Christine Rankin to give her a few tips).
Frankly, it’s creepy “gotcha” journalism where the Herald should have laid out it knew about the letters and requested a response.
JC
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
John Key put her in that position, she didn’t win it off a scratchy card – time for him to find his balls and back up his minister and his decision. Otherwise, at this rate, he’ll be all alone by next christmas.
oh no wait, he’ll have Sharples and Russel. Won’t that be a caucus to behold.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
So when this story ‘broke’ last week and Key had his chat with Bennett, these two letters didn’t come up at all?
Vote:Suspicious and not smart to attempt to ‘forget’ them. In and of itself this is a non-issue, but: let’s see the actual letters, are they on MP letterhead, was her name and/or position referred to and/or used?, i.e. were they likely to carry more weight than a letter from Joe Blogs one way or the other? There also is a system in place for this type of communication, and that is through probation services. Letters to judges in criminal matters from personally involved MP’s are not common at all, certainly not something to be ‘overlooked’ by Bennett when she spoke with Key.
Obviously, Bennett’s home- and private situation is different from her role as MP and now Minister, and I do not for a second think that there is anything in the suggestions that her views or politics would be influenced by the “gang” relations of her daughter’s boyfriend, I don’t think that’s the issue here. What is the issue is that if you take on high office you should realize that scrutiny increases, and that therefore greater openness about this sort of stuff is required. Nobody would probably have been very interested if the whole thing was simply disclosed, warts and all. This sort of gradual disclosure will be damaging.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Not good Paula! Key says he’s ‘dissapointed’. So are we. She didn’t disclose.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Inventory2 – “In neither letter does she attempt to use her influence as an MP – rather she discloses her status, which puts her support into context”
Vote:this must be the twistiest piece of pish I’ve read this year! You’re a trooper!
January 31st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
(FFS, somebody get Christine Rankin to give her a few tips)
Comedy gold.
Vote:C’mon, nobody hates poor little Paula that much.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“Of course we don’t know if he has behaved in prison, but imagine this will be known to the Parole Board.” WRONG D.P.F. you should know by now that the Parole Board is a farce and should be scrapped. The rank and file Prison Officers will know how he has behaved but their view will be studiously and high mightedly ignored by the Parole BOard, they prefer to assume he has behaved. As for Paula BENNETT not a good start I am starting to doubt whether she is the best appointment to the important portfolios she has been allotted. Concern for the victim should have been her top priority.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Hagues (335) Vote: 4 0 Says:
January 31st, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I wonder if Paula was a Labour MP there would be such a hullabaloo over Halaholo?
Certainly there would be on here, no? Tell me I’m wrong.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Are ministers of this government going to stuff up just like those in the last one did and are we going to hound them like we did then, are we, are we?? What fun!
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 8:08 pm
You can understand Paula writing letters for her family if she was a member of the public. However, she is an MP. As I understand our system she is prohibited from trying to influence the judiciary regardless of family involvement and she should know this. If she does not know this then she shows lack of knowldge and education and I question whether she should be a minister. If she knew this and ignored it she showed lack of judgement and I question whether she should be a minister. I understand this is not her first faux par, I ask why was she selected as a minister?
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“However, she is an MP. As I understand our system she is prohibited from trying to influence the judiciary regardless of family involvement and she should know this.”
Albycu, where do you get your understanding from?
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Hi Chuck Bird, everyone who is a new zealander and is educated knows about the separation of powers. A concept which evolved to prevent corruption of democracy. Part of the unwritten constitution of New Zealand I believe. Anymore questions look up wikipedia.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 10:05 pm
alboy:Is it on wikipedia that a former Labour Associate Minister of Justice regularly advised judges , lawyers , psychologists , court staff and counselors on what direction the Family Court should take?
Judges and pollies play the same game mate.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Labour hate being totally irrelevant. Even the Greens are more relevant than Labour in Parliamment these days.
Chuckle.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 10:54 pm
No issue. An M.P. is just as entitled to give a character reference as anyone else of stature in the community. There’s no indication of inappropriate pressure and no conflict of responsibility at the times it was done.
The defendent is entitled to put his best case to the judiciary at sentencing and parole and to present supporting evidence. That is part of the proper process under our system of law and does not in any way constitute undue influence or improper behaviour. As far as I can see the letters were factual and intended to be helpful
A lot of the above comments seem totally clueless including the comment that Bennett should have saved her concern for the victim. Had she done so, almost certainly her comments would have been both useless and ignored since she had no first-hand knowledge or evidence to give on that side of the matter.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I don’t see how this is a problem, would someone care to explain?
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Like others, I probably don’t know enough about this to really confidently comment – and frankly I remain of the view that this isn’t necessarily a public matter – however I can’t see anything in Bennett’s letter that she should apologise for. I abhor violent crime and gangs are a threat we ought to both be wary of and try to understand better. Likewise though, kids who go off the rails need support, not condemnation. So too, the families that try to help them back from the brink.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
albycu notes:
And quite aside from the content of the letters, there’s also the question of form.
“…she started laying down the law pretty heavily on him”; “that he has since been convicted for” and other odd constructions.
Sentences that dissolve into tortuosity, e.g. “It would have been easy for us to turn our back on him at that stage and leave him to grow up in jail, but we can be pretty stubborn ourselves, and my daughter and I believed that it was a complete error of judgment on his behalf, he could move forward, but it was up to him.”
But my favourite has to be “he moved into my residence … as a border”.
Really? Did she employ him in place of a garden gnome, sitting at the edge of her petunia patch holding a little fishing rod?
Since these were important letters, addressed to a judge and the Parole Board, they were presumably proofread and represent the Minister’s very best efforts.
It is to be hoped she has a very, very good Press Secretary from whom she is willing to accept a great deal of input into anything she says or commits to writing.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
academic arrogance is a term I have heard used.
Vote:January 31st, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Who!
An MP who could not keep her legs crossed, breads a daughter who also could not keep her legs crossed with a young thug.
Just the right person to be a minister in government.
I predict a short life as a minister in this government.
[DPF: So you are saying that people who engage in pre-marital sex should not be Ministers? Also that parents whose children have pre-marital sex should not be Ministers? You're not Graham Capill are you?]
Vote:February 1st, 2009 at 5:06 am
As Paula was in absolutely no position of influence, I question why she offered support in a fairly poorly constructed letter.
For me it simply underscores that she had indeed no other form of influence. Which in itself is comforting.
Had it been say a forgery involving herself, or the theft of alcohol from a journalists party on her own account. We should be very nervous about the level of interference in due process.
That her daughter chooses to hook up with a gang affiliated drone, must be disappointing for her.
However, it is the Liberals who normally advocate forgiveness? Isn’t it?
And Winstons lies, and obfusacations , not to mention outright theft on his own account are forgotten.
This is a snarky beat up, and frankly a distraction. Key should give her full support, or relegate her to the back benches.
Vote:February 1st, 2009 at 7:35 am
No, The Herald were doing us all a service by stamping down on this sort of thing: http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2009/01/paula-bennett-in-gang-brawl.html
Vote:February 1st, 2009 at 8:13 am
Rex – your comments on the letters’ lack of sophistication are valid, as are the observations of others of others here on Ms Bennett’s lack of judgement with regard her daughter’s daughter’s father (what was it exactly the young scamp did that landed him in hot water, hmmm?) advocating for him and failing to tell her boss. It would be of no concern, were Ms Bennett an ordinary citizen, however, she aint! Glutaemus Maximus is correct also, where he asks, (isn’t it) ‘Liberals who normally advocate forgiveness?’ It is, we do and we have, although all this looks messy and doesn’t bode well for the NActs, especially given that you’ve got Dunne and the Maori Party attached to your swollen body as well. Dunne alone will provide endless opportunity for leverage from your detractors (pay it back Pete!).
Vote:February 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I think there is a bit of a campaign against Paula Bennett at the moment. I notice the latest Sunday Times referred to her as the “maverick MP” Paula Bennett.
I think she is great! She stands up for what is right, she is plainly spoken and down to earth.
More power to her and shame on the media for the beat up jobs!
How come the media never seem to find any problems with the private lives of female MPs in the Labor Party or the Green party?
Vote: