Bennett and the Privacy Act
July 29th, 2009 at 8:30 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is facing a complaint under the Privacy Act for disclosing the amounts two solo mothers have received in benefits – but last night she remained unrepentant.
One of the mothers said she will complain to the Privacy Commissioner after Ms Bennett provided the Herald with details of the state support she and another had received. The Labour Party also plans to lodge a complaint with the commissioner.
Ms Bennett disclosed the women’s weekly incomes after the pair – Natasha Fuller and Jennifer Johnston – objected to the Government’s decision to stop the Training Incentive Allowance for solo parents doing tertiary level study.
The statement that Fuller and Johnston merely “objected” to the decision doesn’t cover in fact what they were doing. This was not a case where they just gave their views for a newpaper story. I’ll return to this later. First what does the Privacy Commissioner say:
By releasing a large amount of personal information to the media, the individual is taking the risk that unfavourable publicity could result. If the Minister releases only information which is relevant to the issues raised by the individual, that person may not be able to claim that any particular harm was caused by the Minister’s disclosure rather than by the individual’s own disclosure. If the individual is not harmed, there would not be an interference with the individual’s privacy under section 66 of the Privacy Act.
So had Fuller and Johnston merely stated their view on the TIA decision, or were they putting out there a lot of personal informtion about themselves.
First there was the fullpage spread in the HoS. One quote is:
“The DPB is a living, for which my children and I have been very grateful. But it does not afford an ability to save for these sorts of extra expenses.
How can the public judge whether or not there is an ability to save, unless you know how much welfare is being paid to the person. This was a clear opening of the door. But there is more.
And Labour in the House opened the door also:
Darien Fenton: What does the Minister say to sole parent Natasha Fuller, who says her dreams of becoming an early childhood teacher have been squashed by the Government’s decision, and who feels that all the efforts she has put into training so far have been for nothing, because she cannot afford to further her studies without the assistance of the training incentive allowance?
A clear statement that study was unaffordable (even with interest free student loans). Again this opens the door.
We also have these statements from Fuller on the well read Trade Me Forums. She is the Happy Hocker and said:
no o stirer, im a fellow dpb mum, if u read the link its me they are talking about, I was shocked when this came up today as i get disabilty allowance and max in our area of $110 accom supplement and a very very long wayyyyy off $1000, wanted to send this thread to bennat as proof, and a few other mps that are very supportive
So Fuller is openly talking about her personal informaton such as getting a disability allowance and how much her accom supplement is. And as it happens in terms of gross income it transpires she is almost getting $1,000 a week.
And again she talks about her income and costs here:
i bet thats because they pay high rents, mine is $110 and i pay $280 rent but in cambridge, so its really not like its free cash its eatine up, considering my standard benifit with 3 kids is $260 then i get wff and $30 disability which would barly cover the costs of my meds, hospital trips etc
Here she clearly suggests she is getting only $400 a week plus WFF. In fact it is $715 a week. So again this is not the case of someone having their circumstance revealed just because they got interviewed in a newspaper and said they did not like the decision.
There was also a Facebook campaign page set up, which is now hidden from view. But there is also this campaign website.
Now I should make clear that I think it is a good think the two women want to access tertiary education and have a path off the benefit. Good on them. But with interest free student loans and childcare subsidies, it is not a given that it is impossible to undertake study while on welfare. And if they claim it is impossible for them to do so, then the public (who fund both their welfare payments and their tertiary studies) are entitled to have relevant information to assess that claim.
And an equivalent annual gross income of $46,700 for an adult and three kids, while not comfortable, is probably more than many tertiary students could imagine having while studying.
And if one is going to put yourself out as not receiving enough support from the state, it is also relevant to have revealed that just two years ago you gained a $9560 enterprise grant.
Anyway that is my view. What do others say. The NZ Herald editorial says Bennett was right:
The crux of this issue is whether the information now released by Ms Bennett is relevant to their case, or merely an attempt to intimidate, as critics say. The two women claim genuine financial hardship is thwarting their prospects of escaping the benefit and building a career. The total amount they receive from the state must, therefore, be relevant.
Absolutely. And they conclude:
The upshot will not be that people stop speaking out or that the Government escapes criticism. It will be that all information relevant to an issue is more likely to be put before the public at the outset.
Labour seem determined to stand up for the right of peopel to demand more money from taxpayers without revealing all relevant information.
John Armstrong notes Bennett’s strong performance in the House:
In recent months, however, the self-proclaimed Westie has undergone a Pygmalion-like transformation from a rough-around-the-edges ministerial tyro to a more assured, informed and more confident parliamentary performer who is now much more to grips with her vast Social Development portfolio.
One journalist even reported a while back that Bennett often came off better than Annette King in their encounters. And King is a parliamentary veteran.
In Parliament yesterday, Bennett cited the Privacy Commissioner’s guidelines. She said those showed it could be the case that people going to the media were giving ministers “implied” consent to discuss their personal circumstances. But she added defensively: “This is not something we will be making a practice of.”
The reply drew scorn from Labour MPs. A liberal interpretation of the guidelines, however, might suggest Bennett may be right.
Colin Espiner blogs:
But Bennett’s office has been getting increasingly frustrated that the coverage the women have been getting in the media hasn’t included exactly what the pair already receive courtesy of the taxpayer.
Now, the usual way of dealing with this is to quietly slip the details out to a friendly journalist, or suggest someone ask a question that would reveal the information. Let’s be clear here that Labour did this all the time. It’s standard practice.
A useful reminder.
But Bennett went the more open route. She had her staff release the information openly. So for the record, Fuller gets $715 after tax a week from the Government, and Johnston $554. Both are receiving an allowance for pre-degree study.
Fuller also got $9560 under an enterprise allowance to start a cleaning business, which failed because of illness.
The point of releasing the women’s details was to show that they’re already getting pretty hefty benefits – probably more than many working families.
But Colin warns:
I can understand Bennett’s frustration. She’s getting boxed about the ears by a couple who clearly haven’t been telling the full story about their personal situations.
HOWEVER. Ministers have to be extremely careful about using the power of their office to come down on pesky complainants like a tonne of bricks. Bennett has extraordinary access to beneficiaries’ private lives through the Ministry of Social Development.
The concern with something like this is that it sends the message that if you criticise the Government, it will hit you back 10 times as hard. And while I think actually that this information WAS relevant in this case, I’m not sure it was up to the minister’s office to release it.
Personally I would have asked the two women to reveal the info themselves, and then consider releasing it if they don’t – or if they continue to only put part of the story out there.
I also would have had a lawyer give me a written opinion that the release was within the law. It looks like it is, but I am very risk averse and would want it in writing beforehand.
Bill Ralston also blogs:
Bennett, unimpressed by their arguments that she considered selectively left out some valuable financial facts, published figures showing their full income from the state including benefits and allowances.
Cue roars of outrage. Ms Fuller was “astonished”. Ms Johnston was “flabbergasted”. Green MP Sue Bradford called it “beneficiary bashing”. How dare Minister Bennett make public their financial information without getting their permission?
Hang on.
Johnston and Fuller had already taken some of their financial information public when they talked to the media, established a website and blogged about it.
In other words, they did open the door.
The rules are simple and Ms Johnston and Ms Fuller need to understand them.
* (1) If you stand up in public and make a statement, be prepared to have someone contradict you. That’s democracy.
* (2) If you stick your nose into a political fight, someone is likely to bloody it.
* (3) The public, to which you have just appealed, has the right to hear all the facts, not just the ones you chose to reveal.
He concludes:
These two women chose to exercise their democratic right and criticise the Government. Good on them. But to expect the Government not to criticise them back is just plain stupid.
If someone starts a debate they should expect there to be facts and arguments produced that may be detrimental to their position. Once again, that’s what happens in a democracy.
No one is trying to demean the women. I applaud their feisty response to the Government’s cuts but they can hardly expect to be treated with kid gloves by the media if they deliberately enter a partisan political argument.
Tracy Watkins thinks however Bennett has opened a can of worms:
Paula Bennett has opened a can of worms. By releasing the income details of women who spoke out against cuts to the Training Incentive Allowance she has backed herself into a corner.
Ministers have always been able to shelter behind the defence that they do not comment on individual cases. Neither Bennett – nor any other minister for that matter – can offer that as a credible response from now on. A precedent has been set.
That may be a good or a bad precedent!
This morning, Bennett reacted to the furore by releasing advice from the Privacy Commissioner on the circumstances in which a minister is justified in releasing personal information. My reading of it suggests that Bennett breached the rules though that is probably debateable.
The Commissioner will rule in due course no doubt. If she does rule there was a breach, then Bennett will get considerable stick, and of course have to apologise.
I think the extra information they were putting out on the Internet about their circumstances means it was justified, but again it is the Privacy Commissioner’s decision that counts.
Related posts:
- More on the welfare and privacy debate
- Bennett v Fuller
- The welfare state
- Three Editorials on Bennett
July 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
DPF – you can’t honestly tell me that this was appropriate conduct for any Minister?
To all those who use public health care, would you be happy to have Tony Ryle release all of your medical records to all in sundry? I know I wouldn’t and beleive I have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning these.
[DPF: In the correct circumstance of course. If I launched a campaign against the Govt because they won't give me a liver transplant, and the reason is that my medical condition makes such a transplant unsafe, then they can release that - and have done so in the past.]
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:42 am
As long winded and technically valid as this justification is David, it does not change the fact that the minister is having a personal slanging match and is hypocritical in her position.
We’ve just got rid of one group for this sort of thing and we can do it again.
Time for National to think about playing a different sort of game because a lot of us don’t like this one.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:43 am
What is interesting is that these women are “earning” more than many fulltime workers. More to the point, how on earth is a DPB mother ever going to get off the benefit when she cannot leap across to the working world and earn what she now gets? No wonder the DPB is so hard to get off and why even when times were good the numbers did not fall very much at all.
And what are the fathers contributing? Where are they? Why is it the taxpayer that has to pick up the tab? The role of the missing fathers needs scrutiny here too.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:45 am
What I’m saying is do you think that this was a good decision or look politically? She didn’t take advice from any lawyer or any of her officials and instead ‘looked on the privacy commission’s website’. And then relied on provisions that so clearly don’t fit this case. It really makes me question her judgement and intelligence.
[DPF: I said I think the decision was justified. If you read what I said, I also posted that personally I would have asked the women to release the full info themselves first and I would have asked for a legal opinion before release]
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:45 am
NOt1 – I suppose you prefer the more commonly practiced method of “leaking” information to friendly journos?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:47 am
If I launched a campaign against the Govt because they won’t give me a liver transplant, and the reason is that my medical condition makes such a transplant unsafe, then they can release that
No they fucking can’t! If you publically ASK the government why they’ve refused your liver transplant then they can publically release RELEVANT details from your medical files but if you are merely attacking government policy then they absolutely cannot release ANY confidential information about you, no matter how dishonest you are: the best that they can do is explain that there are undisclosed facts that contradict your public statements.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:51 am
So rather than condemn the release of privileged information held by the state your response is to dig more dirt? I look forward to the next Labour government releasing all sorts of personal information held by the state about you, David. I’m sure there will be plenty of people who will be happy to dig up statements you’ve made to justify that.
[DPF: Wow you are being hysterical. I have revealed no personal information on them. They have revealed it all themselves. Do you want to make it a crime to link to a website?]
[DPF again: And I didn't even mention the $400 Fuller spent on hair extensions, as pointed out by a commenter. And again all in the public domain - she went to Fair Go about it.]
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Good the see the right are as stupidly myopic and unprinicpled as the left. Its not what ministers do, its whose side they’re on when they do it that counts weh guys.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:52 am
I applaud Bennett’s stance.
Much more robust than the underhand and downright sneaky methods used by Labour.
They started the skirmish. Were economical with the truth. Got pinged, and Labour were made to look hapless again.
Oh, the faux outrage! Suck it up. Only 11 years or so left to go in the shadows. Excellent.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:53 am
@ manolo they have no reason to be grateful – these are welfare ENITITLEMENTS (I heard Bill English use this word at least 18 times in one 30 minute speech); they are owed man, nothing to be grateful for. People have to be grateful for charity not for something they are due by law.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Like DF said, the ladies in question started it. Paula Bennett just tried to paint a fairer picture.
I was on the Benefit once. We had just returned to NZ from overseas, and work was hard to come by. We lived off savings for a couple of months, but setting up a new place just hoovers up the NZ pesos. So, on the advice of friends and family (who had already helped us financially), we applied for the benefit. And let me tell you that was one of the most humilitating, soul-crushing experiences I have ever been part of. But it helped, it gave us a little breathing space. I have no problems with people knowing what we were being paid, and I never, ever thought I should be entitled to more. I was simply grateful for the help they gave us.
We’re now back into work, and I struggle to make 40,000 in my job. NZ wages suck. But I sure as hell am happier working than taking the dole and having to attend another one of those “Working for You” meetings – too many useless no-hopers, it drags your spirit down. Negative attitudes, atrocious personal appearance, demanding this and that, ffs, grow up, get a job, earn some pride back!
It seriously annoys me that people see state hand-outs as a lifestyle, as a “right”, and then complain that they struggle to keep up with the Joneses and therefore need more. It’s a help, a kickstart, a boost, not a permanent income.
A friend explained that in Canada they have a system where the benefit works more like income protection insurance. You work, you pay. When you’re out of work, you receive it back in financial help. But only for a limited time. Seems like a good idea, it discourages long-term dependency on the government teat, while at the same time helping those who need a help while in between jobs.
R
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:58 am
I’m with Murray.
And from DPF
I’ll point it out again, this $46,700 is soon to be reduced to at least $43,700.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Manolo – these ‘leeches’ were two woman in tertiary study trying to get off welfare. The Government are removing their ability to do so, yet you complain that they continue to take take take. Some people can just never win can they…
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Good on Bennett, she is absolutely right in what she has done. The two women have orchestrated this with some degree of cunning and skill, what with websites and Facebook campaigns etc. They are not a couple of “poor victims” which is what they and Labour will want us to think, same as with Burgess, the multiple property owner last week.
If you are going to make your case public then you have to know that sooner or later, all the information will come out. All Bennett has done is be up front about it rather than leaking it in bits and pieces for political gain like……..ooh that’s right, Labour.
The danger Bennett faces is appearing to use “inappropriate force” to defend herself and the ministry. That’s what sucks most about politics, the common theme seems to be bugger the truth, it’s all about appearances. It means so much time and energy is wasted on PR and spin.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:01 am
DPF – selective quoting, surely, from the Privacy Commissioner’s checklist?
You use this example:
While this one is on the same page and seems more on point:
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:01 am
DIM
More appropriately..
If you got into a media scrap with the government about a heart transplant, (your forth) and they refuse because as soon as you are out of the hospital, you are back on the smokes and down at the boozer, then the government has every right to say why they will not give you another.
Unless those who are bullshitters are revealed to be such, the really needy ones will never get the help they need. The greedy ones are always the ones “fighting for their rights” while those in real need invariably spend their energies fighting to survive and get out of their situation.
But the biggest point in all of this seems to be lost on most of the lefties and the libs. (What strange bedfellows) And it is this.
Two journalists who have in the past been very supportive of Clark, have now said that in the past this information would have been fed under the table to the media. It would have been released, but in an underhand fashion. Bennett does it honestly and you moan and whinge. So when it was done slyly it was okay, but in a transparent way.. bad?!?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Not1 – stop muddying the waters in the long and boring tradition of the left. All Bennett is saying is they already get plenty of support, are in a better financial position than many who work and who support them (including me), and why can’t they get a student loan like the rest of us have to do? It’s quite straightforward. They state their whole aim is to get off the benefit, outstanding and to be applauded. Wel they won’t have to pay the student loan off till they get a job, AND it’s interest free. How cool is that? Oh no, that isn’t fair and obviously beneficiary bashing………get me a box of Tui please.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I noticed DPF’s scissors are in full swing this morning.
He may have considered my labelling of these women as “ungrateful leeches” too strong for his taste.
I’ll be the first one to lament Kiwiblog becoming the blog equivalent of rugby without rucking.
What’s next? Outlaw tackling, maybe?
[DPF: It is a four day experiment]
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:06 am
And in one statement:
@ manolo they have no reason to be grateful – these are welfare ENITITLEMENTS (I heard Bill English use this word at least 18 times in one 30 minute speech); they are owed man, nothing to be grateful for. People have to be grateful for charity not for something they are due by law.
Kiwigreg show the mindset that is now NZ. After 9 years of social engineering the sense of entitlement is unbelievable.
This is why you have generation after generation on the benefit. And until you grow a backbone greg, go have a bong with the fool.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:06 am
[DPF: Wow you are being hysterical. I have revealed no personal information on them. They have revealed it all themselves. Do you want to make it a crime to link to a website?]
Like I said I welcome your support for the next Labour government’s release of your details. For example when you rail against tax rates I guess it will be fair for them to release details of your business interests to “round out the story” by showing your personal financial interests in the debate. What with your “implicit consent” and all.
[DPF: I would find it hilarious if a Labour Govt released details of all the tax I or any companies I own pay. Apart from the electoral oblivion it would cause them (99% of people know the difference between paying your own money in taxes and receiving other people's money in welfare) you would see how much I subsidise other people]
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:06 am
[deleted by DPF - off topic and overly abusive. During the trial period, use general debate for comments like this]
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Kaya – then tell me why did the Minister need to release this personal information in order to state this point? There was no need to release these details in this case and she’s quite clearly over-stepped the mark. Just another black mark next to Bennet’s name which shows she’s out of her depth.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Tracy Watkins is talking absolute crap. Precedent be buggered. Any Minister will continue to be able TO MAKE THE DECISION at any time in the future to release pertinent information or nor as circumstances dictate.
Nothing Paula Bennett has done or said will oblige anyone to say or do anything.
All that has happenned is that the circumstances dictated that the whole truth would serve the debate better than a partial truth,
Don’t I recall something about an immigrant wife basher and his dialysis where the whole truth about his overstaying was tendered in order to allow informed public debate? Wasn’t there also some publicity about the circumstances of State House tenants who were living in $2million properties for 30 years? Relevant infornmation? You betcha!
I’m all for the taxpaying public being exposed to real life examples of just how generous our welfare system has become. Until now it appears to be the private preserve of the “system” to know.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am
IRD collected Child support subsidises Any DPB collected – In theory. For ALL the facts, I’d like to see what the father/s of their children pay.
I have been saing this all along, and I will say it again:- What on earth is wrong with taking out a student loan, Like everyone else that does not recieve government Assistance does? I Fail to see why anyone should expect the TIA when the government will Loan them money FREE of CHARGE.
If i wanted to study, and couldn’t make ends meet while i did, i would have to take out a student loan. Why should it be any different for someone whom is simply doing a different kind of ‘work’?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:20 am
If you got into a media scrap with the government about a heart transplant, (your forth) and they refuse because as soon as you are out of the hospital, you are back on the smokes and down at the boozer, then the government has every right to say why they will not give you another.
No they don’t. They law is very clear on this point. As Graeme (who is a lawyer) pointed out above, the best they can do is state:
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:22 am
You really are very good at this sort of thing – drawing threads from a variety of sources. This piece will be of some interest to Paula Bennett and shows that these girls did cross the line and permitted the Minister to put the full facts before us. As for the Privacy Commissioner she will back the Minister and your analysis will greatly assist in that view.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Oh my heart bleeds for those poor women. The allowance that was cut was, as far as I am aware, $28 a week. If they cannot find $28 a week out of their budget then they are fucking useless. Here is some free advice. Drop Sky, don’t buy newspapers, magazines or books (join local library instead), do not buy any pre-made or takeaway food – make everything yourself. If they smoke or drink then stop. If they have a takeaway coffee a couple of times a week stop. Turn off all electrical appliances at the wall when not in use – leave nothign on standby (TVs, computers, microwaves, dishwashers). Cut car usage down to bare minimum. There you go – I have found your $28 so you bludgers can get back to studying and get off the DPB.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:24 am
There has been discussion about “entitlements”… that the women are entitled to everything that they’re paid and therefore there shouldn’t be any discussion allowed. I don’t see why benefits should be the ONLY government activity or program where people shouldn’t be able to debate whether the level of government spending is appropriate or not, and whether the way benefits are structured provides the right incentives and protections.
Personally, the facts suggest to me that paying thousands of bucks to train these two is throwing good money after bad. The payment of the earlier enterprise grants led to nothing and I’d like more information about why so that I can assess whether the failure of the cleaning business was genuinely unfortunate, due to lack of effort, or was part of some rort. The birth of a third child recently while already on a benefit looks, to me, like either a spectacular failure of contraception or the use of an “entitlement” to prolong and increase a benefit. I don’t believe that payment of benefits at levels that are likely to be in excess of what would be paid to someone with no apparent work ethic is going to incent them to move off the benefit and in to the workforce, and that would suggest the benefit is too high and should be reduced in order to make it more obvious that it should be a temporary thing.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:25 am
“(deleted by DPF – off topic and overly abusive. During the trial period, use general debate for comments like this]”
Utter bullshit.
Show some damn spine and some intelligence man.
You’re being used and manipulated by the left whose intent is to turn you into a political eunuch.
(It got six positive kharmas in the short period before you deleted, so who are you speaking for??)
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Nice summary, pretty much agree with 99% of it. Do have some fairly significant issues with the release of info, potentially could of been done in a better way, but I do also believe it was in the public interest to not be mislead, which we previously were.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:29 am
There is a line here that needs to be identified in order to understand Paula’s actions.
There is public criticism of govt policy and then there is using your personal circumstances to publicly criticize govt policy. These two ladies made the personal circumstances of themselves and their families THE ISSUE in the public eye (even starting websites for gods sake!). They brought their personal details to public attention to criticize govt policy. Therefore the minister had to speak to THE ISSUE and the issue was the personal circumstances of these two ladies and what they could and couldn’t claim for welfare and education assistance under National’s polices.
I would like to know how long these two ladies have been in contact with the Labour party and what Labour told them/encouraged them to do before this all started.
That all being said: Anyone on welfare has just as much right to publicly criticize govt policy as anyone else, but play it straight.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Full disclosure: I get my study fees paid by the taxpayer, and then have to repay them by an additional cut off my pay every fortnight. Because my wife earns more than the limit set by the previous government [and rightly maintained by the present government], I don’t have a student allowance.
Vote:I’d like an extra $28 a week please, but I find that by cutting down my socialising I manage just fine.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Who set these two women up ?.
Goofy and his associates I expect?
Are they connected/related, like earlier Labour balls ups, to “Labour friends/activists?”
Who sought them out specifically to complain to the media?
Why did the MSM not do their homework first – incompetent again.
Well done Paula.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:32 am
“After 9 years of social engineering the sense of entitlement is unbelievable”
Bok – that sums it up perfectly!
The attitude of the woman on TV1 last night was just appalling and you have to ask if she has medical problems that made he taxpayer funded cleaning business fall over why would we throw more good money after bad.
Good on Paula Bennett. I not only want to know what my taxes are paying them, but I want to know what those children’s fathers are contributing
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:33 am
“No they don’t. They law is very clear on this point. As Graeme (who is a lawyer) pointed out above, the best they can do is state…”
Bennett should learn chess. All she needed to do was claim the women were getting ample assistance and in effect challange them to go public with their details.
She lacks the deviousness of some former Labour ministers which isn’t a bad thing but that sort of strategy doesn’t require a lot thought.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am
If you receiving money from the taxpayer and you believe you are being hard done by what is the problem with the amount that you are receiving being made public unless you are , oh I don’t know, receiving well above the average wage.
I receive $411 (all up) per week on the invalids benefit and Ill take a bet that my medical costs are a lot more than hers. And although it is difficult I am grateful to the taxpayers of NZ.
They bought up the issue. If they choose to be less than honest with the taxpayers that support them then they should not be outraged when the public is told the truth or has the truth become such a foreign concept that we no longer understand what it means.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am
So can we look forward to Bennett releasing the amount she got when she was on the DPB ?
Vote:Can we expect to know the amount given to HER for training ?
As has been shown the woman is a lose cannon and I realise that Key had to tick the Westie box but is she the best that could be found among westie ranks ?
July 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Surely she should have stuck to the line of “there are a range of benefits available to people that can help them….” like she had been doing last week.
I’m curious what precedent this sets. Criticise the government and they’ll publicise your details to the world? Sounds kinda “East Germany” to me.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am
“The Commissioner will rule in due course no doubt. If she does rule there was a breach, then Bennett will get considerable stick, and of course have to apologise.”
The definition of “agency” under the Privacy Act specifically excludes MPs acting in their official capacity. I think the only thing we will hear from the Privacy Commissioner is that they don’t have jurisdiction to Act: http://www.privacy.org.nz/exemptions-from-the-privacy-act
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Having said all of the above I do think that Paula by taking this direct approach has caused a lot of Ministerial time to be spent on this issue and Ministers are busy people. I am not sure what her political point is though it is another example of people making complaints being manipulated by the Labour Party. This time while the Labour Party’s fingerprints are all over this they have been a lot more subtle and have tried to shift the debate to privacy issues thanks to Paula’s approach.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Beneficiary incomes should be public information.
They are given money from the taxpayers, and that should be fully transparent.
In some countries, the tax department actually publishes the peoples tax returns. This is how things should be. No secrets.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:38 am
“If they choose to be less than honest …”
there’s no evidence they’ve been dishonest. National have mismanaged a bit of grass roots activism – which wasn’t some overly clever Labour party ploy.
Labour’s offer to help might well turn out to be a poison chalice but want these women set out to do looked genuine to me.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:48 am
DPF said: And I didn’t even mention the $400 Fuller spent on hair extensions, as pointed out by a commenter. And again all in the public domain – she went to Fair Go about it.
The hair extensions story ran last year when Natasha Fuller was still living with the father of her youngest child and so wasn’t on DPB.
Dave also strangely links on “hair extensions” on his blog to a 2007 Te Awamutu Courier story (6.5MB PDF, p.11) which is not about hair extensions at all.
It is actually about Natasha Fuller expanding her business in the face of her suffering Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome. She doesn’t sound like the bludger some are trying to make her out to be at all. More like a woman who battled ill health to attempt to set up her own business, and even managed to get the local newspaper to run a news story promoting it.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:51 am
H1: The definition of “agency” under the Privacy Act specifically excludes MPs acting in their official capacity.
And includes a minister acting in that capacity.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:53 am
H said: The definition of “agency” under the Privacy Act specifically excludes MPs acting in their official capacity.
She wasn’t an MP acting in her official capacity here – whe was acting as a Cabinet Minsiter – i.e. on behalf of the Crown. Big difference.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:57 am
[DPF: ...I also posted that personally I would have asked the women to release the full info themselves first and I would have asked for a legal opinion before release]
I think this is a key point. Bennett had a right to question what they were saying and put them on the spot ie ask them to divulge fully. Instead she chose a course of action that is legally questionable and either she knew it would get something like the public effect it has or she is not competent. I suspect this issue and these two women have been used to stoke a much bigger fire. And it is burning brightly. By design?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:58 am
jarbury>Surely she should have stuck to the line of “there are a range of benefits available to people that can help them….” like she had been doing last week.
Or she could have acted like Colin Espiner tells us Labour used to, when “the usual way of dealing with this is to quietly slip the details out to a friendly journalist”. Labour must know all the breaches of privacy they created by leaking personal information to the press. Since they’re in contact with the Privacy Commissioner already, then why don’t they list them all and let the Commissioner judge?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:00 am
davidp, I don’t remember a case like this one popping up under Labour – where someone’s personal details (to this extent) were somehow leaked to the media.
That said, I didn’t used to follow politics as closely as I do now. And if Labour did do that, then that’s pretty abhorrent behaviour too.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I would have thought that if you knew a beneficiaries circumstances you could work out their “entitlement.” Surely every single mother with 3 kids living in rental accomadation of some sort with a disability etc. gets roughly the same benefit. Is it not possible to release information without naming anyone and get the quantum figure in the right ball park? Even if you got it wrong first time public discussion would surely iterate it to the correct value.
I always thought the tertiary study was about living in a crappy flat, cooking lots of mince and potatoes and attending the odd lecture or two. Wouldn’t a vital dimension of the tertiary study experience be missed if too much aditional funding was provided?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I see a lot of comments about ‘she looked at a website’ for her advice, particularly on the lefty blogs.
Vote:Another case of the left being very economical with the facts when it suits them. The website is specifically for Ministers (and dept. officials) to refer to in exactly this sort of circumstance. If it’s not good enough (which seems to be what the lefties are claiming) then why is it there?
July 29th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I would be surprised if she just “looked at a website”. Key seems happy with what she has ignited.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Toad said:
The hair extensions story ran last year when Natasha Fuller was still living with the father of her youngest child and so wasn’t on DPB.
Toad, do you have actual evidence that she wasn’t collecting the DPB then? I think this would be interesting to explore further too. I don’t suppose you’ve tracked down the father’s identity too perchance? Whether he is also on a benefit?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am
I must say that I find it annoying that taxpayers money gets thrown around so freely when my wife and I are struggling at the moment because ACC seems reluctant to do the job it’s paid to.
She had a bad fall at work a month ago, breaking both wrists and injuring her ankle.
After being pinned and plated she wasn’t allowed to be discharged until ACC assured the hospital that they had home-care in place.
She came home and ACC promised we’d have several hours of help with housework, several hours help with shopping, driving her to medical appointments and several hours “personal help”. There were also supposed to be regular visits from the district nurse and a wound-care plan in place — as well as income-related compensation of course.
We’re now in the third week since she was released and we have seen *NOTHING* from ACC.
I’ve been forced (out of necessity) to stay home and care for her because she can’t even toilet herself.
I’ve also had to drive over 1,000 Kms ferrying her to/from doctors and specialists for care. The promised district nurse has not been seen even once, there is no sign of home help and ACC now owe us around $1,200 in earnings-related compensation.
Despite endless phone calls to ACC all we get are apologies.
At first it seems we weren’t even on the system (despite having a mountain of paperwork arriving in the mail each day, all telling us how great ACC was and how they’d be taking care of us).
Every time we got close to sorting some of the problems, our case would be passed on to someone else who’d say “I’m sorry but your problems are nothing to do with me, I’ve just received your case”.
Last week we got a letter advising that the missing (and much-needed) $1,200 would be paid into our account on that Friday.
It never came.
When I inquired I was told “your bank account number is incorrect” — yet *THEY* copied it from a pay advice onto their forms.
They then demanded that my wife (who can’t write due to her injuries) must fill out a form with the correct bank account number, sign it and mail it back to ACC before they could make any payment. Nobody else we’ve spoken to who’s received earnings-related ACC compensation has had to do that.
The form was supposed to be mailed to us last Friday. It still hasn’t arrived.
They did however, mail us a bunch of forms that we have to fill out to gain the promised home-help entitlements — but they had the wrong dates so we were told to ignore them and they’d mail out replacments. They haven’t arrived.
In short, ACC have really screwed up our lives.
They have contracted to provide the services and accepted (nay — DEMANDED WITH MENACES) payment for same by way of my wife’s ACC levies. They have clearly broken the contract by failing to fulfill their side of the deal.
But who gets held responsible?
I asked ACC that and apparently the answer is a big fat *NOBODY*.
Everybody there seems incredibly skilled at dodging bullets and refuses to take any responsibility. Whenever it looks like someone might be in the firing line, they hand our case onto someone else who claims “not me, I’ve just received your case”.
I am really F’d off now.
We’ve had no income for three weeks and spent all our meagre savings on providing the services that ACC were supposed to be providing.
And… if the minister for ACC want’s to disclose *any* information in respect to *our* case then go for it!
My missus is becoming incredibly depressed, simply as a result of the interminable amount of shite we’re having to go through to get what should be very simple entitlements that have been bought and paid for through her levies.
ACC sucks.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:22 am
sheesh..dpf..i want to see what red-said..
..i know it’s an experiment..and only in its’ second day..
..but here is some feedback..
..these censored threads are failing to hold my interest..much as other censored blogs fail to..
..in that..the removal of some input..really screws with the continuity/context..
..and is both discombumbulating..and boring..and annoying..
..and as one who receives more personal abuse that anyone else..?
..i can handle that..in the name of ‘free-speech’..
(tho’..some demurring from u wouldn’t hurt/go astray..eh..?..
..your silences at whatever personal slanders they throw at me..
..only encourages/validates/drives them to greater heights..eh..?)
..but all that to one-side..i would lean back to a demerit system..but a fairly policed one..
..where clear lines cd be drawn..as in:..(‘dpf:..manolo..cd u plse stop slandering phil..by claiming/alleging he is a ‘p’ cook..”)
..now..one of those…wd likely end that particular slander..eh..?
..but back to my orginal point..
..i wd like to know what red just said..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: This should be in the moderation thread, not here. Will be deleted in future. You will be given a chance to say what you thought of experiment on Friday. Incidentially I have deleted around six comments attacking you during this experiment]
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:24 am
toad said “It is actually about Natasha Fuller expanding her business in the face of her suffering Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome. She doesn’t sound like the bludger some are trying to make her out to be at all. More like a woman who battled ill health to attempt to set up her own business, and even managed to get the local newspaper to run a news story promoting it.”
So what you are saying toad, is that Natsha Fuller knows her way around the media machine – sheesh, newspaper articles, Fair Go, this business – yep, she obviously guards her privacy with a vengeance
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am
RightNow said: Toad, do you have actual evidence that she wasn’t collecting the DPB then? I think this would be interesting to explore further too.
I don’t have any “actual evidence” of that, other than the NZ Herald statement: “When her baby’s father left this year, she was alone and back on the benefit.” Unlike Paula Bennett, I don’t have access to confidential MSD information!
Anyone would have to be particularly silly to have been living with her child’s father and collecting the DPB at the same time, and then publicly criticise the Government on an issue related to benefit entitlements. Natasha Fuller actually seems to be a rather clever woman.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Why?
How would that information be germane to this subject?
The women complained that they were not being subsidised enough by the taxpayer and decided to make a political issue of that – Bennett simply ensured that the tax payer had ALL the information needed to assess those complaints – something the women should have supplied in the first instance.
I would include my views on why they didn’t but no doubt DPF would delete it this week.
When Bennett complains the same I expect part of her complaint will include those details. Until she does the information has no bearing on this debate.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:45 am
If a referendum was held on things like “Should the DPB be discontinued?” and “Should the employment benefit be discontinued?” what would be the likely result. And what would be the likely effect?
This isn’t a trick question, it’s a genuine attempt to see what people would think about it.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Toad said:
The hair extensions story ran last year when Natasha Fuller was still living with the father of her youngest child and so wasn’t on DPB.
The story in the local paper about her cleaning business that ran in March 2007 states that she is a solo mother.
Proof that when the hair extension story ran LAST year she was a solo parent ? I would think so.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I don’t understand why Paula Bennett didn’t take advice before releasing this information. There are some decent lawyers in the National Cabinet such as Chris Finlayson and Simon Power. There’s also Amy Adams on the back bench. Easy peasy to ask the experts. Also a quick call to Crown Law would have helped.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:51 am
It took me five years at uni, with a huge student loan, and another five years of professional work to take home in the vicinity of $715 a week. To be fair I did not have children but equally I was working for my income. I accept that $715 will not go that far with children but it seems to me to be a pretty handy amount to receive from the taxpayer.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Once the women implied they can’t afford to study without the allowance, there is no effective way to rebut that without revealing the information about their income. But it might have been enough to just say that someone on 150% of the average wage doesn’t need the extra allowance, rather than giving out the exact weekly dollar figures.
However Bennett gave a terrible performance when questioned last night by John Campbell and showed she had no idea of her justification for revealing the information. All she could really say was that someone in her office told her it was ok.
Also, i don’t like the comment censorship idea. Obviously you can do what you like on your own blog, but I’d prefer to read the comments knowing that everyone has been able to say what they wanted to say.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:56 am
@ cerium I think it is hard to predict. Most people have empathy with those unable to care for themselves I would think. At the same time I think most workers resent those who dont work but think they are entitled to the same things.
Try alternate questions like “Should an able bodied parent with children over the age of [5] be eligible for DPB without having to look for a job?” or “Should someone who turns down a job be eligible for unemployment benefits?” or “Should the state provide welfare benefits to those who are unable to support themselves?” – these would probably provide more clear cut responses (but still of limited use in designing a welfare policy).
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Graeme Edgeler & Toad: Apologies, right you are, my mistake. Let the Privacy Commissioner at her.
While I feel the details provided by the two women in the initial story were a bit misleading, disclosing information in this way seems like using an unnecessarily blunt instrument to achieve fairly simple ends. Surely there is a mid-point here, something along the lines of “they receive more government assistance than the story would indicate”, rather than a bald disclosure of what seems to me to be some very personal information.
At the same time, certain elements in the media seem to have lost sight of one important fact – benefits, along with all other government spending, are funded by taxes. When times are tight and people who DO actually work and pay tax are struggling, I can understand the need for a long, hard look at essential versus nice-to-have welfare spending.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 10:58 am
…and what the heck is “Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome?”
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 11:05 am
It would help if we had a media that was grown-up enough to discuss political and social issues, rather than personal sob stories.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 11:08 am
“…and what the heck is “Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome?””
The theft of too much oxygen if you ask me.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Wooohooo H (2) post at 10:57. Don’t tell me she’s joined DPF’s radical commenters!
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome (aka I keep getting panic attacks): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperventilation_syndrome
Vote:‘A rapid traditional intervention is to have the patient breathe into a paper bag’
Sounds like it can be treated quickly and autonomously. Give her a few paper bags and she can slash her medical expenses, voila – extra money in her budget for further study.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:18 am
RightNow said: Give her a few paper bags and she can slash her medical expenses, voila – extra money in her budget for further study.
Not sure you’re serious, but that’s very simplistic! It usually works in acute cases, but not a solution for a person with a chronic illness of that nature.
And even if it did work there would be no extra money in her budget for further study, because anything saved in medical expenses would be deducted from disability allowance.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Sorry Toad, I forgot the /humour tags.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 11:24 am
…what Rufus said at 8.57…
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 11:44 am
KiwiGreg 10:56 – yes, all relevant questions that should keep being asked – and dealt with. Properly. Not by whipping up a hate mob.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Can I ask a couple of serious questions with out being abused or shouted down?
Vote:This person received the study grant for 3 years from 2002-2005, what was she studying then, what were her results and what was her attendance like?
I just get the feeling through all of this, that this is a case of someone knowing the system and how to rort it for all its worth
Is it a case of signing up to courses getting the grant and not turning up ever again
Also if this person has Chronic Hyperventilation Syndrome and could not work as a cleaner because of panic attacks how the hell is she going to handle working with kids?
July 29th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Really nasty tactics. National, you picked up a lot of us last election who didn’t believe Labour when they started ranting crazily about evil-baby-eating-nats – just this kind of tactic.
This is the single worst thing I’ve seen National do since the election. Hopefully it won’t be repeated.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
So a couple of beneficiaries, egged on by Labour, indulge in a bit of Government bashing to make a political point.
So the Government counters with details of their taxpayer funded lifestyle and its called Beneficiary bashing.
Question … Is Government expected to maintain mute silence when people go public with with their concerns but fail to tell the whole story?
Answer … Of course not. Bennett, you did the right thing and good on you.
Can I suggest that out there in the land of the great unwashed Bennett is being lauded for having the balls to stand up and tell it how it is.
Meanwhile in the lounges of the Chardonnay set there is a great knashing of teeth.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
In one of the newspaper online polls earlier this morning, Bennett’s release of the information was getting pretty strong approval. So, being ballsy seems to go over better than being wimpish.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I note that “the happy hocker” on the trade-me forum is now disabled and her comments have been removed.
Can I just say, too late. You put your information out there in a number of forums. You criticised the Government and misrepresented your situation by omission of salient information. The government released the facts.
You opened the door. Bennett thankfully accepted your invitation.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
“sheesh..dpf..i want to see what red-said..”
Phool – the thread is about us seeing what welfare is paid to the likes of you- (know you know how we feel)
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Ross an answer to your question – Question … Is Government expected to maintain mute silence when people go public with with their concerns but fail to tell the whole story?
No they are not. And NO ONE expects them to. But what you fail to acknowledge is that there was any middle ground here or that the Minister had any other options available to her. She could had got better advice, could have asked these people what she was going to do to give them time to come out themselves, she could have said everything other than what she said so that others could read between the lines. You pose your questions as if she had no options. That is rubbish.
And I drink Pinot in winter thanks very much.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
and
Taking a never ending run of courses means that you can get extra grants for computers, travel, fees etc etc. There doesn’t seem to be any oversight on whether the investment of tax-payer money is producing any positive result – ie – the person gets off welfare.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Dead right Ross, I bet there is some gnashing of teeth over this one. Every dribbling, left leaning media sycophant has been called in to man the pumps. Their so called outrage at Paula Bennett is actually a deep seated fear that the average struggling peasant in this country is really starting to see through the shit that has being going down over the last decade. Would love to see a poll on this issue, if finding a neutral pollster is possible in this country. I bet Paula would have the backing of over 80% of the population, very much like the smacking debate, I suspect.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I can donate a sack of taro to Ms Fuller’s family on a weekly basis if they can’t afford a sack of potato with the benefit money.
Paula Bennett did the right thing of putting some balance to the story of the 2 solo mums.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I also extend my offer for a donation of a sack of taro on a weekly basis to Phil U , because I am reaching out for fellow humans who may be less unfortunate to afford a sack of potato from the supermarket. DPF, this is not inflammatory comment since I am genuine, because my brothers/sisters get a container full of yams, cassavas (tapiocas), taros every month. It is for sale here in various local outlets, but for Ms Fuller & Phil U, I can supply them one sack of taro per week for upto 6 months for free, until their financial situations improve.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
As opposed to setting up purely emotional arguments along the lines of “mean right wingers cutting benefits” – for the second time in two weeks.
The sort of arguments designed to get people really angry so that they vote out of power nasty National and put into power a kindly left-wing government. Just as in 1999, but without the Hikoi of Hope – yet. The latter naturally not being a hate-filled mob.
The sort of argument designed to avoid entirely any “rational”, “reasonable” debate about the level of support people should receive from the state, particularly whether this should be greater than a lot of working class people earn.
Then there’s the sort of argument that focuses on the issues so beloved of the Wellington beltway (and currently the driver of Dim’s posts): Ministerial nous (“right wingers are stoopid”), legal parsing, wounding governments by destroying Ministers, and so forth.
It’s called framing the debate. So far it does not appear to be working, probably for the simple reason that the key fact most people have taken away from this kerfuffle is that a woman with three kids is getting more money than many working people.
Whether such a system is moral, ethical, or even sustainable would be a debate worth having, but since the left-wing insists on focusing on the pet topics above that are designed to get the emotional juices flowing they’ll just have to wear some emotions they don’t want.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
On a related issue, who else pukes whenever they see obviously staged “poor us” photos in the newspaper?
Head over to the nzherald site to see the latest with the “bruised” solo mum posing with her two overly distraught kids.
I mean, what are the kids doing in the photo? Surely any embarassment they would feel about having their mothers details published would be much worse felt should their photo then accompany the story! I really hate people who use their kids to make a political point.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“they’ll just have to wear some emotions they don’t want.”
I suspect a few more than them will have to bear the emotions. There is no doubt this has struck a very large very raw nerve. I’m not trying to defend our current welfare system, far from it. I’m not against the aim. But I have a lot of concern about the method. Class wars?
I have just discussed this with someone, she was angry about the level of payments that have just been highlighted. And she went on to say she was angry about a number of other aspects of our welfare system. I agreed that it was bloated and unfair on many and a mess. But then I asked her how she would feel if her son was abused by a workmate, sworn at and called a bludger etc ect for getting WFF. Her face dropped a bit.
As bad as the system is there are a lot of people in the firing line, many of them good people. Family, friends, neighbours. And I doubt there is any quick and easy solution.
Tom, National have shown promising signs of raising the political standard. But not this time. Deliberate or not this could easily get quite ugly.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Looked it up on the web… for other another classic example of Bennett dwindling intelligence see David Slacks reference to a hilariously alarming quote in the Listener from Bennetts CEO:
“You have got senior government officials trying to reduce complicated ideas to graphs and pictorials because they know otherwise she won’t read them. We are trying to convert quite complex ideas into flow charts and graphs and diagrams. It’s astonishing.”
Oh dear, dear me.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
It is a shame the lefty media muppets don’t apply the standards they demand of Paula Bennett to their own activities.
Prior to the last election Labour and their media cronies had no hesitation dredging through John Key’s private financial details and splashing them all over the “news”. Now, however, when these 2 shrews (with a little Labour Party assistance) supply misinformation to argue their case against the government, and Paula Bennett supplies the missing information to correct their less-than-honest claims – Paula apparently commits the crime of the century!
More flip-flop “morality” from the biased anti-National hacks/hackettes – their credibility is zero.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Dave also strangely links on “hair extensions” on his blog to a 2007 Te Awamutu Courier story (6.5MB PDF, p.11) which is not about hair extensions at all
That’s now fixed. The link was put twice on the blog. Anyone like to comment on the fact that Fuller has been trained to start her own business, is a fully trained private investigator, but still needs further training?Fuller got hair extensions three months after her daughter was born. Her daughter is 1. Work out for yourself when she would have got those extensions. Probably about the time she went on the benefit to reduce her bank balance so she could get the accommodation supplement after her unemployed partner left her. We don’t know if she collected the dole when/if together or not.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
If I needed any more convincing that Bennett was correct Stuff is currently advertising a column by the lowlife who made his name by attempting to bully people not to watch the ’81 Springboks about (based on the headline – I don’t read his crap) how Bennett is a bully.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
earnesto quoted:
We are trying to convert quite complex ideas into flow charts and graphs and diagrams. It’s astonishing.
And what do you think? It is only a daft person who thinks that government ministers are supposed to immediately grasp issues presented to them rightaway is an idiot. That’s how it is supposed to be. Climate report arriving from Dr. Wratt from NIWA reaching Helen Clark’s (during her time), Nick Smith’s or John Key’s desk has to be simplified as much as possible into to graphs and pictorials because these climate Physics topics are very very complicated ideas. Perhaps Nick Smith may have a clue, but Clark & Key ? No way, they (advisors) must simplify complex issues as much as possible, be it economics, law, health/medicine, science or whatever area, because there is no single government minister that has the knowledge of a MacGyver (ie, one who knows everything in depth).
So, a person who finds it to be astonishing that most info reaching a government minister’s desk has been simplified is a daft person. That’s how it is supposed to be, because if its not and the consumer of the info is being silent and not ask questions about anything that she/he doesn’t fully understand/know (perhaps for fear of being ridiculed in not understanding the report), then God help us all, when that person makes a decision.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Maybe one of those people should get themselves a job in private sector. I spend much of my life reducing complex ideas into a handful of powerpoint slides so that I can present them to a chief executive or other senior individual. Because otherwise they don’t read them. It’s called an executive summary.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Reducing something to an executive summary is a little different than reducing it to primary school level which is what Bennett seems to need.
I think there is a difference between having an advisor give an analysis of a complex matter and requiring something to be broken down into spoon feedable blocks for a minister that is obviously out of her depth. The CEO is noting that, relative to other ministers, Bennett is a bit thick and requires much more simplfication of information than other Ministers.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
ernesto: do you have any evidence to support that? Bennett has a university degree – it seems unlikely that she’d need things reduced to primary school level to understand them. Although, having met some recent graduates of NZ’s university system, perhaps I’m being over optimistic.
It feels to me a bit like some on the left are engaging in bashing of Bennett because she is a woman, a solo mother, and comes from an un-privileged background. They’re attempting to use stereotypes against her, I’m not seeing evidence at the moment that there is substance to these accusations. Isn’t that just a little bit stinky for a party that claims to believe in equal opportunity?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“..a party that claims to believe in equal opportunity?”
I think what we are seeing is a party who believes in equal outcomes. Bennet has risen above her lot and needs to be dragged back down. If she continues to succeed it can only hurt the self image of other solo mothers. Hence the left attacks.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
To engage yourself in to a political debate without some sort of rebuttle is intellectually dishonest, and somewhat naive. To fire pot shots at the policy of the government, quote your personal circumstances, then attempt to hide behind the privacy act is at best disingenous, at worst stupidity.
I applaud Paula Bennett for the stand she is taking, she is aware of the big picture. She knows, unlike Annette King and Sue Bradford, that in the current fiscal climate that there are ‘need to have’ policies, and ‘nice to have’ policies. A DECISION has been made here, not a proposed policy with some as yet to be allocated funding which appeared to be the case previously.
This government has much more respect for the taxpayer than it’s predecessor.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
# MT_Tinman (343)
July 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
If I needed any more convincing that Bennett was correct Stuff is currently advertising a column by the lowlife who made his name by attempting to bully people not to watch the ‘81 Springboks about (based on the headline – I don’t read his crap) how Bennett is a bully.
Yes, because opposition to state sanctioned racism is a completely and utterly reprehensible attitude to have.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“do you have any evidence to support that? Bennett has a university degree – it seems unlikely that she’d need things reduced to primary school level to understand them. Although, having met some recent graduates of NZ’s university system, perhaps I’m being over optimistic.”
I think you have answered your own question. If you think meeting a recent graduate is ‘eye opening’ you should try meeting some recent ‘sociology’ graduates, they’ll open more than your eyes.
This should be Simon Power’s new job when he loses the Injustice portfolio.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Enesto,
If I can point you out to a climate research paper on the internet and if I may ask you that I am gonna summarize it for you in order for you to comprehend the issues described (lets assume that you’re a government minister in Wonderland where Falafulu is your advisor), do you guarantee that what I will summarize for you that you can understand it rightaway? See, I can summarize it in a way that I assume you would cope with understanding it (perhaps based on my perception of the level of your understanding as a minister). Again, would you guarantee me that if I do this, you wouldn’t come back (or post back here) and say that the info still needs to be distilled further? And if you keep asking for more simplicity of the info, then at what level that I think to myself, whoa this minister Ernesto definitely has an understanding of a primary school level. It is better to present the information in its simplest form (even primary level) rather than a blind assumption that the consumer of the info can handle it if it is not presented in its simplest form.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
dave said: Probably about the time she went on the benefit to reduce her bank balance so she could get the accommodation supplement after her unemployed partner left her. We don’t know if she collected the dole when/if together or not.
That’s below the belt dave, and assuming DPF is correct re the Trade Me identity, the evidence would indicate otherwise (post 12 on this thread):
Stop making it up to try to make this woman look bad.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Now Ms Fuller has had herself disabled, her posts are saved in their entirety on – http://www.votemenot.co.nz
One she started this morning, specifically inviting comment, is here – you can troll for the rest , should you be so inclined
http://www.votemenot.co.nz/thread/37548900/come-and-attack-me/
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Toad shes making herself look bad
If got a job at New World or something, which seems to be where (the Government) wants us to work, it’s not enough to get by with three kids. I would have to stay on the benefit,
Except that she is a trained private investigator, has done a small business course and run her own business for two years. Perhaps people working in supermarkets would aspire to be in her situation.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
How odd, the link in this post:
http://www.privacy.org.nz/checklist-for-ministers-and-departmental-officials/
has been removed.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
dave said: Except that she is a trained private investigator, has done a small business course and run her own business for two years.
Hadn’t picked up the private investigator bit dave – got a link? Anyway, can’t see where she’s going to get the childcare for the evening hours when private dicks have to do most of their work. And she’s already told the media she couldn’t continue running her cleaning business due to health reasons.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Bennett and the Nats to the citizens of New Zealand: “Dont Fuck with Big Government”
the next day: you useless zealots continue harping on about how awful governments are throwing their weight and abusing power.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Natasha Fuller and Jennifer Johnston – objected .. NO! adding yet anothing entitlement to their beneifit.
WINZ want and help beneficiaries to claim their entitements… and when they do… The WINZ boss and most of us on this blog chastise them.
WINZ are at fault not the beneficaries.
WINZ has a list of entitlements that beneficiaries can claim.. maybe WINZ should throw out the list of entitlements.. that they so readily pass out.. that only entice the benefiicaries to stay on benefits.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
PaulL a degree, you call social work studies a degree, I would not, to me it comes under the Old Icelandic macrame degrees.
Vote:Is it too much to expect a Minister to be able to grasp papers put forward without them having to be dumbed down to westie level ?
Saving time is understandable, not having the ability means she is in the wrong job.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I bet that much like Neelam Choudary we are going to see a lot more dirt come out in the public arena about natasha fuller. Ms Johnston may be more genuine but it certainly appears (from trademe boards and other media) that Ms fuller has some things to hide.
Vote:Next thing you know Mickey Savage is going to come and tell us to stop blaming the victim and accuse Paula Bennett of putting natasha’s name out in the media first, and that John Key must resign because of it.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“And she’s already told the media she couldn’t continue running her cleaning business due to health reasons.”
assuming she didnt repay the $9k govt grant she got for her cleaning business? Did she sell it – or was it just a failure anyway?
Vote:she’s already ahead so perhaps she should just be a bit grateful and keep her mouth shut
July 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
PaulL and Falafulu
You’re wasting your time arguing with someone tagged as “ernesto” and appealing to their “beliefs” or even to the idea that they are arguing in good faith. Look at the name tag. It’s all about the politics of personal destruction – which neither you nor Bennett are allowed to play as it happens. Different rules since you have a political standard to raise while ernesto has a societal war to win and he’s playing for keeps.
As such, Paula Bennett’s background is utterly irrelevant in terms of appeals to beliefs, principals or stereotyping. She is a class and gender traitor, a political enemy to the likes of ernesto, and that trumps everything else. Any attack on her is legitimate, as it was for Kulaks and……
….even working class rugby watchers.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
DPF, any idea why that link is broken? http://www.privacy.org.nz/checklist-for-ministers-and-departmental-officials/
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
http://www.privacy.org.nz/checklist-for-ministers-and-departmental-officials-2
Vote:Seems they changed the URL.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Hadn’t picked up the private investigator bit dave – got a link?
Yep, on my blog. You don’t need childcare for evening hours when your kids are asleep. But you can get babysitters if you work evenings, although there’s plenty of work from home jobs that one can do to supplement studies. I work from home.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
It also seems that the Fuller bludger can afford hair extensions that cost $400 but not $28 per month for her studies.
This whole story stinks, I would not mind betting she is a Labour or Green party member.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“..KiwiGreg (390) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 1 Says:
July 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“..a party that claims to believe in equal opportunity?”
I think what we are seeing is a party who believes in equal outcomes. Bennet has risen above her lot and needs to be dragged back down. If she continues to succeed it can only hurt the self image of other solo mothers. Hence the left attacks..”
that’s a cute spin..
esp as bennett is the one who has cancelled the leg-up training allowance…(that she used to ‘rise above her lot’..(whatever the fuck that means..)
..bennett is just turning into a reincarnation of rankin..
..(“..other sole-parents can kiss my arse..
..i’ve got a bosses job..at last..”)
..and now i’m pulling up the ladder..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
big bruv said: It also seems that the Fuller bludger can afford hair extensions that cost $400 but not $28 per month for her studies.
bruv, please try to keep up.
From what I’ve ascertained from her Trade Me posts she was living with the father of her youngest child when she got the hair extensions, and he was in a well paid job and filthy rich. He then left her for another woman sometime around Christmas last year and she had to go on the DPB.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Might be time for a Benefit Control Unit investigation into Paula Bennett’s sources of income while receiving the DPB and the TIA back in the early 90s – and into whether she declared them all, given that periodic payments, even if of a capital nature, are deemed as income under s 3(1) of the Social Security Act. If people like Jenny Johnston and Natasha Fuller are fair game, then so is Bennett.
Rumour has it…
Watch this space – the evidence is emerging.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
“..Falafulu Fisi (213) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 1 Says:
July 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I also extend my offer for a donation of a sack of taro on a weekly basis to Phil U ..”
thank you very much for the offer..
..but could you give that ‘sack a week’..
..to a south auckland food bank for me..?
..thanks again…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Toad said “Watch this space – the evidence is emerging.”
Oh well, she wouldn’t be the biggest loss in the world. Probably the equivalent of a haemorrhoid falling off.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
toad says “Rumour has it…”
’nuff said
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Sam Buchanan suggests:
Oh but Sam, this is so much more interesting. It enrages people who’ll then watch their news bulletins and buy their rags so they can get even more enraged and come comment on blogs.
Whaddya want, ya interlektewall?! A dispassionate analysis of the effectiveness of current expenditure and nonpartisan suggestions for improving the system?! Outta the way, we got us some blinkered prejudice to peddle!!
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Toad of the green washed reds says
“Watch this space – the evidence is emerging.’
yes it was Toad: people on the dpb being given more than your common old Joe bloggs lower paid worker; but people like your goodself submerged that for the invasion of privacy angle. An inconvenient truth.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
ah toad. everyone else is over it. it’s yesterday’s news…just like global warming.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Jesus Toad you really are clutching at straws arnt you. How very sad your life must be.
Why dont we stay with the facts?
No, sorry you are one of the Labour lap-doggies or poodles, so you just keep on spreading rumors
telling lies, stealing money and then try and legitimize it.
Wow the greens suck, big time!
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
she was living with the father of her youngest child when she got the hair extensions, and he was in a well paid job and filthy rich
Vote:Actually she was pregnant when she got the hair extensions. And probably on a benefit while living with her partner. I`ll be posting some relevant info shortly.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
You know Toad, there was a time when the Greens had some value. When you had Rod and Nandor. Two guys who I thought was a bit misguided, but they at least believed in the whole green philosophy. They actually cared about the planet.
But the rest of you…
It must be soul destroying knowing you are that impotent. That little thought of, that even your masters, the Labour party were happier dealing with that slime ball peters rather than you.
That no matter how hard you tried, you achieved nothing. And now you are like eunuchs. You have all the tackle but it just does not work. So like the eunuchs of old, you are reduce to rumor mongering and bitching from the sidelines.
I for one would like to call you out. As I am sure that Paula Bennet would. You have information of wrong doing. Spell it out here where your ip address can be traced if it is false. So toad, shit or get off the pot. Jesus slugs have uses in my garden, your type does not.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Toad says”:
“From what I’ve ascertained from her Trade Me posts she was living with the father of her youngest child when she got the hair extensions, and he was in a well paid job and filthy rich. He then left her for another woman sometime around Christmas last year and she had to go on the DPB.”
“had to go on the dpb” shouldn’t it have been that he had to support her?
Things can change Toad.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
hj said: shouldn’t it have been that he had to support her?
Yep – should have been that he did. But the law doesn’t require him to. Absentee fathers usually can manage things to avoid much, if any, financial responsibility for their children.
Bok said: Jesus Toad you really are clutching at straws arnt you. How very sad your life must be. Why dont we stay with the facts?
Actually, I think I’m one of the few on this thread who has tried to stay with the facts. Most have gone beneficiary bashing, like the clockwork mice Paula expected them to be.
Can’t let the facts get in the way of a bit of good old anti-beneficiary bigotry, eh guys?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Bok said: So toad, shit or get off the pot.
Not gonna shit till its a real good dump, Bok. A litle pooplet amid lots of farts is not worth the effort.
Going off half cock you end up like Goff. All I’m going to say is that I received some info today that is very interesting. But not posting anything more anywhere or making any formal complaints unless I can verify it sufficiently to know it’s not a beat up or a set up.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
> Bennett simply ensured that the tax payer had ALL the information needed to assess those complaints.
That’s a Tui ad in the making. If Bennett wanted to ensure we had all the information, why not disclose how much Fuller spends on ambulances and medical supplies, etc? It’s like the government telling us what it spends on welfare without telling us much it receives in revenue. The former is useless without the latter. Bennett has given us only half of the story.
Maybe Bennett could tell us how she was able to get a $56,000 loan from Housing Corp as a 19-year-old while on the DPB. Would she like to tell us how she managed to pay off that loan and what the interest rate was? Has she ever received welfare to which she was not entitled?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Larry Williams made some good points about what could be seen in the house when Fair Go did the story on the hair extensions. Apparently the clip clearly shows two flat screen TV’s, laptop, surround system, new dining suite etc.
What a comparison between these two women.
The Invercargill lady earning around the $500 was shown on the news. Has no issue with Bennett and talked to her today to discuss her issue with the training allowance. Looked like she lived in a very average/shit house with old furniture etc and was part way through her nursing study and just wanted to continue.
The Hamilton chick that earns the $750 per week lives in a pretty nice house and has all the latest gear and seems to like to waste money (ours) buying wasteful items. She has seemed to show no real attitude to better herself, except as Toad tells us to sponge of richer guys and is only talking about studying, not actually doing.
I suggest benefits should be handed out on merit and in my book the Ingill woman is way ahead.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Looks like one of the women may have been getting WINZ assistance unlawfully
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Good work Dave. She sound like a right slapper and backs up my post above.
What goes through someones head when you already have a couple of kids then hook up with a guy for a few months and have another. I think he was just in it for some dirty fun until she pulled out the baby entrapment card.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
A lot of speculation going on here. Keep it up, you might drive her onto the sickness benefit. And you will still have something to complain about!
Don’t worry about her kids. Surely they genetically deserve it all as well.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
dave: you are being a scumbag. What you have posted on your blog is:
That would indicate that:
a) You have no more evidence about Natasha Fuller’s entitlement to benefit than I do about Paula Bennett’s at this stage – just some allegations.
b) You have no evidence that she was receiving the benefit while living with the father of her youngest child.
c) Even if she was receiving the benefit while living with the father of her child you don’t understand the law regarding relationships and benefits – there has to be both an emotional commitment for the foreseeable future and an financial interdependency. If she were on benefit while living with him (and there is no evidence of that anyway) and he refused to provide any financial support (especially after father ing her child), then the financial interdependency legal requirement for the relationship to be considered a de facto relationship and his income to be charged agaisnt her benefit is absent.
Get a life and stop making unsubstantiated allegations. I used to have some respect for you Dave – you did some good stuff – especially with victimised ACC claimants – in a past era. Now you’re looking more and more like Ian Wishart. What’s gone wrong?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Bennet should not comment on individual cases and she should not bwe asked about or expected to answer questions on individual cases.
Vote:To answer questions on individual cases implies that you would be williugn to make law based on an individual case and that would just be stupid.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“..# Southern Raider (1046) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 1 Says:
July 29th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Good work Dave. She sound like a right slapper and backs up my post above.
What goes through someones head when you already have a couple of kids then hook up with a guy for a few months and have another. I think he was just in it for some dirty fun until she pulled out the baby entrapment card…”
some say opinions are like arseholes..everyone has got one..
..in this case..the opinion is an arsehole..
..eh..?
(btw..if i’m ever looking to make up a lynch mob..i’ll keep you in mind..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Toad so by your way of thinking I can go and shack up with someone and as long as we both claim to have no emotional or financial ties then we should not be concerned about WINZ wanting any money back?
Great where do I sign up.
You do realise that if everyone adopts this lifestyle then there won’t be anyone left working to actually pay for these lifestyles?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Southern Raider said: Toad so by your way of thinking I can go and shack up with someone and as long as we both claim to have no emotional or financial ties then we should not be concerned about WINZ wanting any money back?
No SR. That is not what financial interdependency is about. An agreement to maintain separate finances is in itself a financial interdependency – simply because there is an agreement between the two parties concerned.
But financial interdependency is absent when one of the parties to the relationship outright refuses to provide financial support, despite the financial circumstances of the other party.
For more info re the legal test, see here.
So, SR, if you were a big enough arsehole, you could get away with it. Mind you, most women wouldn’t keep you round for long if you tried, methinks. But some, usually those with trauma in their childhood or teenage years, don’t see they have any choice.
Isn’t the patriarchy great!
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Isn’t the patriarchy great!
You know what I love? The fact that you people are in opposition.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
So how did Bennett get access to the individual case files? Since when are individual case files discussed with ministers and to what end is this individual case information even supplied to ministers?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Hurf Durf
Here here. Mind you they are not really in opposition, they are where they have always been since Donald passed away (RIP) – playing yes minister to a major party because they have sold out on their principles.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Southern Raider
I think that question is too big for the socialists. Break it down and lead them gently into the position where they can see the obvious. See the problem is that all they really want is for everybody to be dependent on the state so they vote for the ‘hand out’ party. It’s impossible that they can think through the consequences because they can’t even comprehend that their ideology has failed time and time again – there is no chance they think what might happen in the future when they can’t understand the past.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Hurf Durf said: You know what I love? The fact that you people are in opposition.
You know what I hate? The fact that there are still misogynist pricks like you around HD.
I commented on a legal issue, provided a link to the relevant commentary on the legal judgment, and all you can do, you neanderthal, is reply with woman-hating abuse without addressing any of the legal issues.
You really are gearing up to be the surrogate ‘bater here when the real one heads off to elope with (or fantasize with his hand on his todger about) Sarah Palin in the Land of the Free. Aren’t you HD?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
The fact of the matter here remains to be that she, as minister of Social Development and solely minister of Social Development (relieving all other appointed portfolios to Turia by excuse of excess workload) was clearly out of line and she should apologize to both women and the NZ Public.
“What is clear is that despite the supposedly newer, softer, gentler face of National on welfare, nothing can mask the seething resentment that remains skin-deep among the public against beneficiaries”- this comment comes despite evidence that both John Key’s mother and Paula Bennett benefited directly from similar state assistance in the past.
At the end of the day I am expecting the Privacy Commissioner to make the right decision – to rule that Paula Bennett did indeed breach privacy acts and that she apologize as an incompetent minister of such a highly regarded portfolio.
Shame on her and shame on those that appointed her!
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Shame on her and shame on those that appointed her, and shame on the people who gave birth to the people who appointer her, shame on the people who impregnated the people who gave birth to them and shame on the people that educated them all enabling them to get jobs and support kids without state assistance.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Fale Andrew Lesa
Apologise for breaking the law – that is so Labour party… come on if she broke the law she should be charged…. I have access to detailed information of a sensitive nature in several client sites where I work. If I decided that it suited my purpose to reveal details that I’m legally not entitled to would I get away with only being made to apologise?
MP’s being above the law was supposed to have stopped with the change of govt – keep up.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
philu
Did you tell us all how much state assistance you receive each week (did I miss it in all these threads) or are you still waiting for a special ministerial press release to out you? Oh and how is the vaporizer going ?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Not a Palin fan, toad, sorry. Wow, you’re sounding positively apoplectic over this whole thing. Is the referendum”b” starting to not go your way? Did Mateewea turn down your propositions? You should probably have a lie down.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
burt..are you spondre..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Greens and laws? LOL!
“In accordance with the 60% Carbon Emissions Reduction and Beef Ban Act, I must measure your shower speed, Comrade Hurf Durf!
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Hurf Durf said: Is the referendum”b” starting to not go your way?
I don’t actually give a shit about the referendumb, because the question is just plain stupid.
Anyway, off topic, and potentially subject to the moderation trial (yep, this response of mine might be deleted as well) so let’s get back on thread.
My questions to you:
Do you consider patriarchy to be an appropriate social control mechanism to ensure the subjugation of women to men?
Do you consider feminism to be a threat to society as we know it?
Careful now! You wouldn’t want to align yourself with Palin and ‘bater, would you?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
HurfDurf said: Greens and laws? LOL! “In accordance with the 60% Carbon Emissions Reduction and Beef Ban Act…
Another indication of your ignorance HD. Under Green policy, beef farming would be completely exempt from “carbon” (including N2O) charges, because beef farming’s greenhouse emissions are actually well below the 1990 emission levels that Kyoto commitments are set against.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
In a world where smacking is outlawed, only the outlaws will be smacked.
Wait, what were we talking about again? I can’t tell from all the dribble and blood squirting out of eyesockets. All I will say because I want Sue Bradford to break into my house and vigorously straddle me in the middle of the night is that I consider the Gween Party a cancer to be excised with extreme pwejudice.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
philu
NO.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Yes, yes and yes
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Toad
Grow up. This is not Ruka, y’know. The person in that case didnt pay the mortgage, rates, insurance etc for the beneficiary concerned. This woman’s partner did, as I have said. And the amount she got each week for food was nearly as much as the entire DPB.
You said
The hair extensions story ran last year when Natasha Fuller was still living with the father of her youngest child and so wasn’t on DPP
I have just written that she documented that she was not living with him then
And you call me a scumbag? I suggest you do your research before you abuse me, you silly little toad. this may assist.
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
dave said: I suggest you do your research before you abuse me, you silly little toad. this may assist.
I had already looked at that nasty little post of yours before I posted the comment you replied to Dave.
It contains no facts – just unsubstantiated allegations from a forum thread – all of which could have been and probably were posted by misogynist pricks who frequent here, NoMinister, or WOBF.
d4j could be a prime candidate for fabricating the comments methinks.
And you say “do your research”! Where’s yours?
I used to have a lot of respect for you when you were supporting ACC claimants and victims of chemical poisoning on the ACCForum Dave. What made you go to the dark side and align yourself with woman-hating creeps like many of those men who comment here?
Vote:July 29th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Fraud. Such a lovely word. I do hope no one in Labour’s latest honey-trap has been, errr, fraudulent. As in the verb. Claiming our money esrtwile shacked up with a bloke, as with, I mean. Looks a bit that way. This is starting to look as bad as the poor down-trodden out of work property investor Labour trotted out last week. Hey Phil, I’m prepared to be painted as a victim of National, go on! Give me a go, looks like fun.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Honey fish served on a crusty Labour loaf with assorted southland greens – I expect to see that one on the Back Bencher menu sometime soon.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Oh, the that dish naturally comes with generous lashings of tax payer cream and a spicy past pesto. A finger bowl is provided to wash your hands of it when you are done.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:23 am
> So how did Bennett get access to the individual case files?
Well, it seems she bypassed her own Ministry and had direct access to the files. Nice. I wonder what other files she’s got direct access to. And it makes you wonder: why didn’t she simply ask her own Ministry for the info? Maybe she was worried they would tell her to piss off.
Interestingly, when she was asked by Charles Chauvel in Parliament what advice she’d taken before revealing the confidential info, she evaded the question. Speaker Lockwood Smith then asked her what advice she’d taken and she again evaded the question, which suggested she had taken no advice. But on Campbell Live the other night, she admitted she had taken advice. Which (if any) version of events is the truth remains a mystery.
What is clear is that Bennett is untrustworthy and should stand aside.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Ironic, for someone promoted as a bold promoter of fully informed debate she certainly seems adept at the art of waffling evasion.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:37 am
So how did Bennett get access to the individual case files?
Her office has access to SWIFTT. Which is the WINZ system.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Natasha Fuller was with her partner when she had her Hair Extensions, she had a new born baby and plenty of cash. She also just had botox!
Vote:December 13th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
What is wrong with people on benefits having more cash in their hands than people who work? Labour thought it was excellent and it did hold them in power for 9 years so really, what else mattered?
Vote:December 13th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Although I deplore the way Bennett published the information I do support it being released. Bennett has to take any punishment hounded down on the chin, no matter how sever it is or how extensive the consequences are. Similarly the cases in questions smacks of a rort or two going on and should be scrutinised to the letter of the law. The whole shitty issue has been put in the public domain, lets see the justice system have a crack it at because the political system has made a hash of it.
IMHO. Unemployment benefits should be capped at equivalent of full time min wage. Adjust that threshold all you like, but to have an overlap simply provides the fertile ground to cultivate a culture of entitlement.
Vote: