Charles not in charge

May 27th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Social Development Minister has attacked the integrity of a solo mother who is asking for $15,000 to settle a privacy complaint against the minister, after previously denying she wanted any money. …

“I ruled it out right at the beginning, there wouldn’t be any cash settlement and I was incredibly surprised, particularly after her advocate [Labour MP] saying that she wasn’t looking for a cash settlement, to then get a letter from the Privacy Commissioner a matter of days later saying categorically that she was.”…

Mr Chauvel said he helped Ms Fuller draft the complaint and the letter sent a few weeks ago, but had since recommended another lawyer.

Charles seems to be backing away from Ms Fuller at fairly high speed.

Tags: , ,

31 Responses to “Charles not in charge”

  1. Doug (408 comments) says:

    I see over at Red Alert Carmel Sepuloni is standing up for a proven liar and wants Paula Bennett to pay.

    http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/05/27/bennett-continuing-to-make-the-rules-up-as-she-goes-one-rule-for-her-and-a-different-set-of-rules-for-others/#comments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    She gave away her right to privacy when she went after Bennet in the media in the first place for the Labour party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. big bruv (13,688 comments) says:

    She has no right to privacy when it comes to her income Mike.

    We pay her to sit on her arse therefore we have a right to know how much she is getting and what she is doing about trying to find a job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. CJD (334 comments) says:

    Trust Champaign Charlie to get involved-it was he who drafted big chunks of the ETS. Why should he now suddenly show any better judgement in this case?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Good point BB

    As the technical employer she is answerable to us for how she uses her 40hrs a week.
    yep get that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    BB – you think this is the case for every public servant too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (13,688 comments) says:

    Not1

    It pretty much is that way, with not much effort one can find out what the pay range is for most public servants.

    Having said that, I have no problem at all with 90% of the public service, most of them work hard and do a good job, there is of course an argument that says there are far to many of them but that is not the point I am trying to make today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Inventory2 (10,264 comments) says:

    CJD – by way of clarification, it was Chauvel who drafted large chunks of LABOUR’S ETS – the one which was rushed through under urgency before the 2008 election so that Helen Clark could campaign on it.

    As much as I oppose National’s watered-down ETS, it’s worth noting that Labour’s version would have been far more punitve across the board.

    As for Natasha Fuller; Labour definitely backed the wrong horse in its attempts to get to Paula Bennett. She’s a loose cannon, with no credibility whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    Thid woman said she wasn’t after money and admitted she’d liedabout it already.

    Now she is demanding money, and not a small ammount either. I think it might be time for her to be gone after, see how she likes it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    What a great start to the day. National don’t need to dig up dirt on Labour, they make their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Not1tocommentoften: The difference is, unlike Fuller, most Public Servents work for their living.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    The cheek of this fucking bludger to ask for $15,000.00 for humiliation (the humiliation being exposed as a lying parasite)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. MikeG (425 comments) says:

    I thought that Bennett wasn’t going to comment because they “were going through a process” – so what has changed? I guess on the one hand nothing has changed – the Minister is still releasing information that should be private between the Minister, the Privacy Commissioner and the complainant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Viking2 (11,351 comments) says:

    And good job too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. tvb (4,319 comments) says:

    I think Chauvel needs to make a statement to the house that he was not behind trying to obtain $15,000 out of a Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (9,771 comments) says:

    “Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has attacked the integrity of a solo mother…”

    So what? Using nasty personal smears to deflect away from discussing the substance of the issues those two women raised has been Bennett’s [cowardly] tactic since day one. Nothing changes. You don’t criticise our Paula’s Ministry, or she’ll f*ck you up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    “Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has attacked the integrity of a solo mother…”
    Interesting they phrase it as an ‘attack’ by Bennett. What did Bennett do exactly? Did she make a press announcement that Natasha Fuller has no integrity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (9,771 comments) says:

    ^^^ The little words in blue at the top of DPF’s post may be of some help RightNow.

    Ms Bennett yesterday attacked Ms Fuller’s integrity and accused her of being motivated by politics.

    “Her integrity is obviously in question. She says one thing in one breath and then the next day seeks media attention, and then goes online and lies so it becomes very hard to believe anything she says.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10647715

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    Those little words are in red for me actually RRM since I’ve already visited the link. My question was why the Herald phrased it as ‘attack’? Someone with no axe to grind would have used neutral wording, the Herald wording makes it clear they are partisan in their approach to this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (9,771 comments) says:

    “Her integrity is obviously in question. She says one thing in one breath and then the next day seeks media attention, and then goes online and lies so it becomes very hard to believe anything she says.”

    ^^^That right there is an attack. Simple!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. RightNow (6,966 comments) says:

    And to be honest, Bennett has been much more diplomatic than I would have been. The woman is a leech who has had ample support from the state, far beyond the safety net the welfare system should be, and is overtly trying to blackmail Bennett for more money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. GPT1 (2,116 comments) says:

    I think Labour are flogging a dead horse here. It seems to me that most New Zealanders take the view that if you choose to go public then they would like the whole story. Bennett might have been unorthodox but the impression I have is that most of the public take the view of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    It is worth remembering that these two were complaining about a reduction of taxpayer funding for some hobby courses but omitted to mention that the taxpayer was helping them out significantly already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. RRM (9,771 comments) says:

    We’ve never had a chance to forget that GPT1. Bennett keeps squealing that over and over again, in the hope that she’ll never actually have to discuss the issue of that funding as long as she keeps deflecting.

    Because a Minister of the Crown shouldn’t have to be upfront to the public about issues. It’s enough to simply discredit any nay-sayers personally. That’s a sensible and transparent way of operating the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    Charles seems to be backing away from Ms Fuller at fairly high speed.

    Whoa there. Before everyone follows DPF’s lead and forms a posse to ride down Fuller, let’s back it up a bit. Charles Chauvel is orchestrating this?

    He’s a list MP, so Fuller is not, technically, a constituent. His Party spokesmanships are on climate change. energy, commerce and justice (associate for the last two)… nothing to do with welfare, unemployment etc so not his portfolio issues.

    So what’s he doing pulling the strings and then abandoning his protege when the tide turns? Naked ambition much?

    I think Bennett was in the wrong for revealing beneficiaries’ details publicly. I also think it’s understandable an opposition MP might facilitate something like this being brought to notice. But there’s a foul air of opportunism such that it’s worked against the best interests of the person supposedly being represented here…

    Not a good look.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    If she did get the 15K would tyhis count as income and would she then lose the DPB?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Steve (4,541 comments) says:

    $15,000.00 for humiliation? Sure, why not? and then back on the $715 net per week. Taxpayer will pay as usual.
    Fuller is a scumbag parasite just like our resident Philip Ure. Time to get a job.
    Charlie Shovel is on shaky ground, supporting scum is not good even for a List MP. Bad boy Charlie, brownie points have turned to shit.
    I owe you nothing Natasha Fuller, I do not owe you a living.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. jaba (2,120 comments) says:

    I remember when this 1st came out AND what MIKENZ at 9:29 said, should be the end of the story .. this crazy, foolish self centered sponge put herself into the public domain by going to the Labour Party with her bizarre complaint . she receives a similar gross amount similar to what I EARN with much stress and effort.
    I Paula and or the Nats pay her another cent I will spew

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    Jaba, You don’t seem to realise that it has already cost you. How much do you think the Privacy Commissioner gets paid? And no doubt Shroff will have others on the case too. That’s where Paul Bennett is a little naive, maybe even thick. She discloses private information and then says that she did the right thing. She wouldn’t consider for a minute that she could and should have kept her trap shut. Now we are all paying. Bennett could of course apologise and say it will never happen again but that would require her to have some humility and decency. So far I haven’t seen her display either commodity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Clint Heine (1,570 comments) says:

    Creepy Charles strikes again I see…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, it seems that Bennett did indeed breach Fuller’s privacy and may have done so again with her latest disclosure. What surprises me is not so much Bennett’s arrogance, but John Key’s decision to support his minister. Sooner or later a light bulb should go off in his head that he is backing a loser.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10647977

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nicola Wood (57 comments) says:

    If people actually read news articles properly they would see that Fuller has been referred to a lawyer – Chauvel is no longer advising her. He helped her to draft a letter to the privacy commission asking for an apology. If since then Fuller has asked for cash then that’s clearly advice she’s recieved from somebody else.

    Anyway, it’s advice that’s well within the law in this case. The most worrying thing in all of this is that we have a Minister who doesn’t seem to think the rules which apply to all other New Zealanders should apply to her. Reeks of Muldoonism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.