Sunday papers on Bennett
There is little new in the Sunday papers on the Paula Bennett story, but worth looking at what has been said.
The main story in the HoS quotes from the two letters released yesterday, and is pretty unexceptional. What I found more interesting was the HoS Editorial, which seems to be slightly schizophrenic in part prasing Paula, while part insisting the public had a right to know. I suspect their original story got a bit of a backlash. An extract:
On the face of it, and in the absence of any evidence arguing to the contrary, Bennett’s decision to take Halaholo under her roof and her pleas in mitigation on his behalf are unexceptionable, understandable and even commendable. At times of strife, particularly when the law is requiring an errant youngster to face the consequences of his actions, family bonds are tested, and those that do not break are precious indeed. It is difficult to imagine that Bennett’s motives in allowing her granddaughter’s father to be bailed to her home were anything other than entirely blameless. Her personal history, which has not been free of tribulation over which she has triumphed, would equip her to be an ideal guardian of a young man who needed watching over, and the non-custodial remand alternatives, presuming they existed, would very probably have been less satisfactory.
I think most people have reached that conclusion.
But that is not the issue. As a society, we quite properly regard election to any public office, and particularly to Parliament, as imposing duties of disclosure above and beyond those that attend on normal citizenship. This is particularly true of ministers, which is why they are required to declare their assets. It is for the public, not the executive, to decide what among their private financial arrangements is and is not relevant to the discharge of their public duties.
There are additional duties of disclosure, but I am not sure your daughter’s boyfriend qualifies. Where do you stop? Your brother’s P habit? Your uncle’s drink driving? Unless there are links to your actions as a Minister, I tend to think it is private business. If a Minister’s child crashes a private car, it should not be noteowrthy. If the car they crash if a Ministerial taxpayer funded car, then it is noteworthy.
So it is in this case. Only three years after being elected to Parliament, Bennett has been entrusted with an important cabinet portfolio at what might be regarded as a tender age. There is no evidence that the hospitality she extended to Halaholo compromised her, but the questions this paper wished to put to her and to her boss remain of public importance. When did she become aware that Halaholo was involved in a gang? What contact has she had with other gang members or associates? Did she, in the security vetting that all ministers undergo, disclose her relationship with a convicted violent offender? What discussion has occurred about the potential security risks involved?
I really don’t think the daughter’s boyfriend being associated with some gang members (I understand he is not in fact a member of any gang) is quite the same thing as having an affair with the girlfriend of a Russian spy (Profume affair).
John Tamihere has a brother who is a convicted killer, and probably knows dozens of gang members. Is anyone suggesting he (when a Minister) should have had to detail to the Cabinet Secretary every gang member he has ever associated with in case it somehow is a security risk?
Hey Rob Muldoon had a few sessions with gang leaders. That is a security risk I guess. Well mainly a risk to the gang members 
Personally I think the security risk angle is merely justification for running the story. Not that I’m upset the story was published – I think it shows that Ministers are not some privileged elite with perfect families and lives.
Finally we have the SST story. It is largely unexceptional, except for this first paragraph:
PRIME MINISTER John Key has reprimanded his renegade social development minister Paula Bennett after she failed to tell him about letters of support she had written for her daughter’s jailed partner.
Paula is now a renegade Minister? Wow, let’s use the really colorful language. Dictionary.com defines a renegade as:
1. a person who deserts a party or cause for another.
2. an apostate from a religious faith.
–adjective
3. of or like a renegade; traitorous.
So maybe we can agree that’s going a bit over the top. As in 1000% over the top.
But at least Paula is in good company if she is now an official renegade. That is also the Secret Service codename for Barack Obama, as detailed in the Telegraph.
My favourite codename is Kittyhawk for Queen Elizabeth II!
February 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
David, maybe I am a hard old bastard, but when a party rants on about being tough on crime and then we see that one of that parties MPs has taken a crim charged with GBH into her home, questions should be asked.
Is it to be a norm that those charged with GBH will be released on bail under a Nat government.
If the answer is no, why then was this crim released on bail ?
As I understand it previous form has a bearing on bail, this crim had form, so why the release on bail ?
A question David, has this woman showed the type of judgment that one would expect a minister to have ?
[DPF: Generally I would expect a 17 year old on GBH charges to get bail unless they were thought likely to offend on bail. The fact is he did not offend on bail, so the call was a good one. I fail to see any fault in Paula's judgement for trying to help her daughter's partner turn his life about.]
February 1st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Excellent post David.
Take Tamihere as you say – his brother is one of NZ’s worst and most dangerous criminals. He is not abused about it.
Seems to me that a lot of people just plain don’t like Paula – nothing to do with being tough on crime. Tall poppy syndrome maybe. Like Obama she didn’t get to where she is through family or influence. She is the American, if not NZ dream in that respect.
A significant amount of misogyny is swirling around this too.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
DPF – im sure you dont see a problem with it.. cause shes a National MP.
its a disgrace.
do we know if he was on a benefit at the time?
and its not a given someone charged with GANG RELATED GBH would be given bail either.
course we could use PB’s words… describe it as “an incident”.
DPF – lets try some empathy with the victim here… say youre sister or brother or someone close got smashed over bad by a gang member.. then that gang member got a sweet bail at a freakin MP’s house… reckon youd be slightly pissed?
[dpf: No I would not want anyone who does GBH to someone I know to get bail. But we have a justice system that generally does not put people into prison until they have been found guilty of an offence. Also he is not a gang member. The purpose of bail/no bail is not to punish the offender but to keep the community safe. The fact he did not offend during the bail period shows it was a justified call, and he had time to put his life together so hopefully after he comes out he does not offend again. He is still doing a four year sentence regardless and if he had not got bail, then they would deduct off that time in prison, so no extra days behind bars]
February 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Clearly the Editor of Harold Herald doesn’t know his English language and worse appears that he hasn’t got a dictionary.
If the editor of the countries biggest and supposedly most influential paper gets his english wrong what chance is there for those being educated in this country?
Unless of course it was another of Granny’s attempts to insert its left wing ideology into the discussion by attempting to put a spin on the story without regard to journalistic ethics.
We expected this sort of crap from Liarbor and from the likes of Curran but surely Granny can do what it should and keep its politics out of the news.
Still O’Reilly will either go broke or get sold up this year and maybe we will be have a change in Editors.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
ok.. the question is.. would he have got bail if PB hadnt offered him a place to stay? im guessing he wouldnt.. which makes it a lucky call! she risked her future on her daughters idiot bf.. thats a big call..
and i still wanna know his welfare status at the time. if he was getting the dole, was he paying board?
would love to know how rodney would react if she wasn ACT! minister..
February 1st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
[DPF: Generally I would expect a 17 year old on GBH charges to get bail unless they were thought likely to offend on bail. The fact is he did not offend on bail, so the call was a good one. I fail to see any fault in Paula's judgement for trying to help her daughter's partner turn his life about.]
David, you can understand the cynicism of some of us when a political party states we will be tough on crime, yet part of it’s policy of being tough on crime is defending bail for violent crims.
That he did not reoffend on bail is neither here not there, if he had no history of violence fair enough as a seventeen year old.
But this bloke had a history of violence so should that not come under the ideal of being tough on crime, being no bail for those convicted of violent crimes in the past ?
The Nats cannot have it both ways.
[DPF: If he had a history of violence then he probably would not have got bail.]
February 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
grumpy – it pains me to agree with you..
he had a history of violence and PB still took a punt? bad judgement! did she have any other kids living at home at the time?
if he has a history, hes doing time for GBH… hes gonna reoffend again. rehabilitation does not exist in kiwi prisons.
WHO here would make the same call?
ya have a daughter whos in love with a scumbag, ya know he going down for a major crime, but ya invite him to live in your home anyway? honestly, who would do that?
[DPF: Prisons may not rehab people much, but during his time on bail he stopped offending, got not one but two jobs and worked hard, And you think this was a bad thing?]
February 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
This has been an interesting debate in the few postings that have occurred so far.
There has been an attempt to suggest or imply that the Left have been jumping up and down about this but my impression is that the left has been stoically quiet. If any thing they may feel somewhat sorry for Paula. She is a person who is hopelessly out of her depth in her new role and who was selected for PR rather than talent reasons but it is good to see the Minister has some human decency and the ability to forgive and try and help someone who obviously has struggled.
The voices of criticism that I have heard have all come from the right. The idea of helping family members in trouble is obviously an anathema to those who cannot forgive or show compassion.
I must say that I feel sorry for Bennett. The left will continue to despise her because she is part of a Government that already appears to be callous and inept. And the right will despise her because she is human.
But Viking2, Nanny Herald being left wing? Hahahahahahahahaha, surely you jest?
February 1st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I hear, like a subterranean rumble, the call for Ms Bennett to be replaced by someone older, maler, whiter
February 1st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Check s15 of the Bail Act, which tells the court that any person over 17 and under 20 MUST be granted bail unless “if in its opinion no other course is desirable”. That latter part comes from the now very patchy Criminal Justice Act 1986 but really means they must have a pretty bad record not to be bailed if they are under 20. The normal rules in s8 of the Bail Act do not apply in those respects. The idea is that we simply do not want under 20′s locked up with hardened criminals if we can at all avoid it. Tends to make the youngsters more, not less, likely to offend further. Plus it is not really good for them from a physical safety point of view.
dime, would he have got bail if Bennett hadn’t offered him a place to stay? Actually, the answer is probably yes. And if you get a responsible person offering a good environment for a youngster to stay in then even better. GBH is a serious offence but a person with minimal criminal history is still entitled to be treated like everyone else, regardless of whether they are gang related or not.
Both of DPF’s answers in the comments sections are completely correct. The presumption of innocence is something we tend to forget about in this country, but it is still a real consideration in in the criminal process. I have had clients spend a year in custody only to be acquitted. Now, it was their prior history that got them that remand in custody, but it is still a long time out of circulation only to be found not guilty. When the person is young, then we need to exercise more caution, not less, especially whilst they are adhering to their bail conditions (which are often pretty onerous. I have one client at the moment who is having his curfew checked twice a night, every night of the week).
Quite honestly, my respect for Bennett is actually increased by this, not decreased.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Agree FE S, especially your last line.
A no-nonsense approach from a person willing, it seems, to make the hard calls.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
As a parent, imagine the disappointment of seeing your daughter going out with that scum. Heartbreaking, to say the least.
February 1st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
SIGH so little to get wound up over)
ps my young new dog ran like shit this weekend (DOG AGILITY) IM WOUND UP like a coiled spring darn, young toerag(ILOVE HIM) and i had to go back into work to reprint a fuckup by a young printer. ME the old fart ALWAYS saves arses,at DOUBLE TIME???? call me GRUMPYOLDPAKEHA hehehe
February 1st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
F E Smith I have some problems with the approach to bail in this country, GBH is one down from murder/manslaughter in NZ so for some reason I would prefer the person charged with it to be in jail.
Having said that there is no damn excuse for a twelve month delay before it comes to court.
Courts too busy, run them 24/7 until the backlog is cleared.
Bail for murder, if we in this country are giving bail for GBH why not bail for murder for those under twenty, in a lot of cases the only difference would be one blow ?
February 1st, 2009 at 8:28 pm
ok.. did a quick survey.. no one i know would let a scumbag like this in their house.
so heres the question my right wing tough on crime friends….
Q Your daughter is dating a scumbag who has a history of violence. in a gang fight he beats someone half to death. not a quick whack.. but an absoulte beating. would you put hi up in your house while he awaits trial?
yes/no reply if you dare!
one more question – would you then descibe GBH as an “incident”?
February 1st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
No, and no
February 1st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Q 1; NO!
Q 2; Certainly but I’d add an adjective like disgraceful, unnecessary etc.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Grumpy, you make a fair point on both issues. That said, the level of charge is not so relevant to the issue of bail. The major considerations are set out in s8(1) Bail Act (are they likely to: not turn up, interfere with witnesses and/or commit further offences whilst on bail? those are the major ones). I have worked in defence teams with clients charged with murder who have been out on bail before, and that without incident. I have clients at present on serious violence charges who are on bail without incident. Not that the police supported bail, mind you, but on the law (which is written by the politicians, mind, not the lawyers working in the system) you just work through the factors set out in the Act.
Completely agree that 12 months is too long for trials, but it is starting to become not just commonplace, but even quick in many parts of the country. Unfair to all concerned (especially we lawyers as we generally get paid only after depositions and then after the trial.) Hard to speed up the process as we don’t have enough trial courtrooms and certainly don’t have enough defence lawyers (go on, laugh) to really progress cases much faster. Right now it seems that the growth in prosecutors is far outstripping the growth in defence lawyers (and I am in a position to know this for certain). Then you have to allow the the amount of police time spent on getting ready for trials. Fortunately trials only make up a very small part of the overall picture in the criminal courts. It is just that the media like them because they are generally more interesting.
dime: maybe, depending on the person, and yes. But then I think my definition of ‘incident’ will differ from yours. Is GBH serious? Absolutely. But Bennett’s answer to the first question is just why I admire her. Plus, it appeared to have a positive effect, which is even better.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
The reason we have ‘young thugs’ in our communities is beacuse no-one gives a shit enough to try and turn them around.
Except Paula.
Personally I’d rather have people in Parliament who have come from the real world, have real families, and don’t back down from the hard issues, than a bunch of teachers and unionists with no experience running a business or running a family.
When it comes to representation in Parliament, clearly some of you aren’t as supportive of social-economic diversity as you are of ethnic and sexual diversity.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 am
I’m surprised, DPF, you feel the need to defend Bennett. She has, after all, apologised to the PM for not telling him the full story. So much for the beat up which you originally claimed this story was. If the story was a beat up, why on earth would Bennett apologise to Key? She knows she did wrong. Let’s hope other Ministers are not going to surprise the PM.
I don’t have a problem with Bennett helping her constituents. But I expect that she would look at the perception of her helping a criminal and would be totally upfront about it to her boss. She wasn’t.
[DPF: There are two seperate yet related issues. One is whether this should even be a story in the first place, and I still can't see how it is news worthy. The second is how it was handled once it became an issue. I have not defended anyone on that, and in fact suggested that the Government should be much tougher in gathering all the facts on an issue, once it is necessary]
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
“As a society, we quite properly regard election to any public office, and particularly to Parliament, as imposing duties of disclosure above and beyond those that attend on normal citizenship. This is particularly true of ministers, which is why they are required to declare their assets. It is for the public, not the executive, to decide what among their private financial arrangements is and is not relevant to the discharge of their public duties.”
So says the NZ media; after doing a beat-up of John Key’s almost irrelevant Rail shareholdings, while turning a blind eye to Labour Cabinet Ministers who owned investment properties, all the while they were actively pursuing a line of fiscal and monetary policy that pumped up the biggest property value bubble in history.
Sorry for the slight diversion, but this is one of many examples of media bias that is being overlooked and shouldn’t be.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
F E Smith: I wish you posted here more often; your few postings are memorable for having been so consistently good.
You said it:
“…..I think my definition of ‘incident’ will differ from yours. Is GBH serious? Absolutely. But Bennett’s answer to the first question is just why I admire her. Plus, it appeared to have a positive effect, which is even better……”
Yep; she might have taken a slight risk regarding the “letter of the law”, but don’t we admire people who do that in a good cause and when it has a beneficial result?
If it was some “get soft on crims” politician sheltering a Graeme Burton, yes, it would be an issue, and a serious one.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
How much welfare is being guzzled by the Bennett household?
Is the unmarried Bennett daughter sucking back DPB payments like Helen Clark with a hose and a golf ball to raise the second bastard of this violent criminal? What about the mother of the first child?
How much dole did this violent criminal suck back while living with the Bennetts?
How much welfare did Paula herself suck back raising her gang-affiliated, solo-teenage-mum daughter back in the day?
Over the generations, how much has it cost the Kiwi tax-payer in welfare to and incarceration for the Bennetts and their criminal associates?
When are we going to stop paying the shallow end of the gene pool to breed?
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
think there is a bit of a campaign against Paula Bennett at the moment.
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?
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
oob has said it all, thanks for your non-PC honesty. Refreshing to see. I find myself agreeing with the left on this one. Paula’s appointment was a PR exercise. She brings the wrong sort of experience to her portfolio. We need a minister who will get tough on welfare, not one who has sucked on the tit, and it would appear done nothing to discourage her own daughter from doing likewise. John Key should send her packing now. She is an embarassment to this government.
[DPF: To the contrary Paula went from welfare to work, is exactly what the welfare system should be about. Unless you suggest solo mums should starve and have no income at all? She took on a variety of low paying jobs rather than stay on welfare and has remained off welfare since. And you are making assumptions about her daughter's status, not based on knowledge]
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Unless you suggest solo mums should starve and have no income at all?
Personally, I don’t see the value in paying for the lifestyle choices of the welfare guzllers and the criminals and I certainly don’t see the value in producing more of them.
You’re perfectly welcome to take a different view and chose to support them. I want to have the choice not to.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I was born the same year as Paula Bennett, also left home at 15 (in my case due to a violent dysfunctional household) and have fortunately always had paid work since that time. In addition to this I lived with a biker gang from 15-17 years of age (it’s hard to be selective about flatmates at that age) so know a little about what goes on. I believe I am in a position to ask Paula Bennett “what sort of a mother encourages her precious daughter to shack up with a gang member?” Plus I would add “how dare she make women on the DPB feel like moochers when they get an student allowance”. The decent ones are attempting to raise the future generation of tax payers. It is not cheap or easy to raise children (I should know I have two children myself) – the difficult part is raising intelligent, respectful contributing citizens.
Which leads me to how I feel about Paula Bennett…..In my opinion Paula Bennett is “a poor example of a woman and mother”. My problem with her is whilst she took the DPB (and study allowance) she “failed to teach the child, she was being paid by the government to raise, any morals at all”. In addition to the gang affiliations I understand “her daughter has just been charged with drink driving”! In my opinion “Paula Bennett is not a success story but a FAILURE as a parent and a politician with poor judgement, no morals or empathy, plus a big mouth which appears to be disconnected from her brain 50% of the time”.