Bennett v Fuller

August 15th, 2012 at 2:50 pm by David Farrar

The reports:

The Director of Human Rights Proceedings announced today the resolution of a complaint under the Privacy Act against Hon , Minister of Social Development.

The Director, Mr Robert Hesketh said, “On the basis of the Minister’s letter to me, I have agreed to close my file. The matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. The letter from the Minister is attached. We have all agreed that the letter speaks for itself and we will make no further comment.”

The complaint had been referred to the Director by the . This is the normal process under the Privacy Act when the considers a complaint has substance, but the parties cannot agree on a settlement.

The letter is here. Bennett says she maintains she was justified in her actions, but regrets the comments same others made re Fuller, and the hurt that caused.

I do believe that if individuals who receive state support portray themselves publicly as “hard done by”, that there is an obligation for the full nature of such support to be revealed. Without it, we the public, have incomplete information.

However the best practice in future would be for the individuals involved to be asked to consent to MSD releasing their details. If consent is refused, that should be publicised, and if then a decision made on whether to release without consent.

Note this does not apply to individuals on state support criticising the Government or its policies generally. Absolutely not. Only if they talk about their individual circumstances in a way which doesn’t provide the full picture.

Tags: , , ,

83 Responses to “Bennett v Fuller”

  1. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Not really a news item – National have been bashing beneficiaries for decades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    I do believe that if individuals who receive state support portray themselves publicly as “hard done by”, that there is an obligation for the full nature of such support to be revealed. Without it, we the public, have incomplete information.

    Despite your belief that there is some obligation, I can confirm that there is a legal obligation on the Minister in such circumstances not to release private information of this nature.

    A minisyer will however able to say “I have looked into the matter, and the public have incomplete information. I am confident the support we provide is more than fair. I will happily discuss the matter with Ms X, and will answer your questions in detail if she agrees I can discuss her case publicly.”

    This isn’t so much “best practice”, rather a law passed by the last National Government which is nearly 20 years old. Feel free to seek a law change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. civil serpent (23 comments) says:

    Graeme – IPP 11 creates an obligation not to disclose, unless (for example) an individial authorises that disclosure. From memory the Minister’s position was that because the complainant had discussed her benefit entitlements in public fora (blogs etc), then she had at least impliedly authorised the disclosure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. UpandComer (536 comments) says:

    Puller said she was immensely hard done by. Turned out she was getting hundreds and hundreds of dollars per week – she can get fucked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    That is the problem Upandcomer and the reason she’s on the bludge. She did get fucked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. alloytoo (541 comments) says:

    Lets not forget the Minister’s fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer, it’s only our friggin money after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    did your school teacher tell you than ham?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    From memory the Minister’s position was that because the complainant had discussed her benefit entitlements in public fora (blogs etc), then she had at least impliedly authorised the disclosure.

    That is my memory too.

    You and the Minister are correct that Implied consent to release of information is a basis on which it can be released.

    The problem with respect to this scenario is that publicly discussing your benefit entitlement is not an implied consent to this disclosure. The Privacy Commission gives an example of an implied consent to public release which transposed to these facts goes something like:

    The Minister and the Welfare Recipient are both being interviewed on Close Up. The Welfare recipient says “I’m not getting enough support, tell me Minister, why can’t you support me to get off Welfare?”

    Notice there isn’t an express consent to public release, rather the consent is implied by the fact that the person asked the Minister on live television for an answer. There is nothing even remotely similar in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It’s ironic that this has come in the same week that Judith Collins hinted that breaches of privacy by ACC staff would likely result in them being sacked. Paula Bennett should be sacked for her petulant behaviour and her refusal to accept why it was inappropriate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Doc (91 comments) says:

    “Here is my apology”
    “This letter is to apologise for…”
    “I’m sorry for…”
    “I’m sorry that…”

    …was anyone else expecting to find language like that in the letter? Or was it just me?

    Don’t get me wrong – in my opinion, if you go to the media moaning about how ‘hard done by’ you are, then you should absolutely expect for the details of precisely how hard you’re doing it to be made public.

    But in this instance, having been found to have breached Ms. Fuller’s privacy, I was hoping that Paula would have had the good grace to apologise, rather than merely acknowledging that her actions had taken a toll…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It’s also worth noting that the bully doesn’t rule out releasing private details of beneficiaries in the future. Should anyone be surprised?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. trout (939 comments) says:

    The full story is never told. How is it that a woman on the DPB (+extra allowances) can go on to claim relationship property from a man that she claims she has been living with for the requisite period.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    David Shearer says:

    “This is completely unacceptable. I would certainly not sanction this type of behaviour. My ministers would be held to a higher account than what John Key is holding his ministers to right now.”

    Asked for comment on one of his Ministers breaching the Privacy Act, Key replied (from the U18 World Baseball Championship) that it was the top ofthe 9th innings, the scores were tied, and his son was in the batters box.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    @ ross69 – you really need to get some help for your Key Derangement Syndrome. All that hatred will take a toll on you; it’s simply not healthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    KS

    You really must develop a sense of humour…it will benefit you when National are no longer in govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    poor widdle bludger

    sucking the state dry and cryiong cause its not enough. how bout a thank you?

    pretty sure she chose to have the kids she cant afford

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    David Shearer says:

    “erm, ah, not not, erm ah, completely support, erm, something”

    Asked for comment on one of his Ministers breaching the Privacy Act, Key replied (from the U18 World Baseball Championship) that ross69 needed to loosen the grip just a tad.

    There, FTFY :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. BeaB (2,123 comments) says:

    Ross john key really gets under your skin. Why? Such personal hatred is unusual. Successful goodlooking genial men with happy marriages and a loving family should attract admiration rather than jealousy and spite. Your obssessiveness robs you of any credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Perhaps what should be done in future cases is the minister release the exact same information but say that a theoretical bennie in similar circumstances would be getting $x.

    THe woman was a bludger and we had a right to know – although given the nature of these “hard done by” cases that get trotted out we all know the full story is that they are getting more income than they admit to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    This is an interesting debate highlighted by Graeme’s analysis.

    As I recall, the complainant argued about the termination of a training allowance. She and her co-complainant maintained that as a result of the termination of the training allowances, they had insufficient funds to better themselves.

    I cannot recall whether they made any representations about the exact dollar amount received on a weekly basis or whether they spoke in general terms.

    There was never any dispute that both complainants were in receipt of a Domestic Purposes Benefit and given that this is payable at a statutory rate, there could not have been any breach of privacy by disclosing the statutory rate. This of course presupposes that the complainants had acknowledged that they were in receipt of a benefit.

    Nor would it have been a breach of privacy had the Minister recorded that the beneficiaries were, possibly, eligible for discretionary supplements of prescribed amounts.

    The issue here is that the Minister disclosed that these particular beneficiaries were in fact receiving supplements of a discretionary nature.

    I am not sure whether the amounts were fixed by statute (regulation) or whether they varied according to the discretion of Work and Income New Zealand. The argument against the Minister weakens if the amounts are fixed.

    The minister’s problem in this case is that she appears to have disclosed the fact that the complainants were in receipt of discretionary allowances and the amounts of those allowances.

    She has taken the view that the public pronouncements by each of the complainants involved an implied waiver. Robert Hesketh appears to have taken a different view.

    The test is not whether the complainant actually authorised disclosure. The test is whether the minister believed, on reasonable grounds, that the complainant had authorised disclosure.

    What may or may not be reasonable cannot be measured with any degree of exactitude. However, given that the legislation is designed to protect privacy I rather suspect that a more conservative view than that adopted by the Minister might be appropriate.

    That, however, does not necessarily make the minister a “bully”.

    What may or may not be a waiver is not really susceptible to empirical measurement. It is easy to say what is definitely not waiver and what definitely is waiver. Somewhere, however, there is a grey area on the continuum between.

    The minister waiver at a point on the continuum different to that determined by Robert Hesketh. By what measurement does one determine that one of them is right and the other is wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    What’s more ironic is Bennett being the Minister of Social Development.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    “David Shearer says:

    “This is completely unacceptable. I would certainly not sanction this type of behaviour. My ministers would be held to a higher account than what John Key is holding his ministers to right now.””

    So why can’t he stop his shadow ministers having a bitch fight amongst themselves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. axeman (252 comments) says:

    What Bennett should have said was that the complainant was ‘Fuller Shit’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Wow, is that how people treat each other in Fucknucklestan, your socialist utopia Hamnida? That’s not very comrade like now is it? I think you might need some attitude readjustment…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    I do believe that if individuals who receive state support portray themselves publicly as “hard done by”, that there is an obligation for the full nature of such support to be revealed. Without it, we the public, have incomplete information.

    Well I don’t think it’s even SLIGHTLY appropriate for a Minister of the Government to respond to criticism of the Govt by publicly attacking her critics.

    That’s more Orwellian than anything Labour’s done that anyone on here has ever described as being “Orwellian” :-)

    Notwithstanding that the breach of privacy was also completely illegal and the Crusher should be asking for her resignation…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    Fuller is, and remains a parasite. Good on Westie Paula for outing the bludger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    “….then she had at least impliedly authorised the disclosure…..”

    Read this and weep. Such is the illiterate state of those who purport to be intelligent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    “Well I don’t think it’s even SLIGHTLY appropriate for a Minister of the Government to respond to criticism of the Govt by publicly attacking her critics. ”

    Agreed. But what constitutes an attack? If a beneficiary goes public and maintains that the level of benefits available are insufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living and the Minister responds by disclosing the amount that this particular beneficiary receives so that the public can make its own determination on the adequacy, is that an attack? Had the Minister responded as per Big Bruv at 5.11 p.m. then I would be inclined to agree with you. In this case, however, the minister was simply releasing dollar amounts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chris2 (766 comments) says:

    This woman was/is in receipt of the sharp end of some $700+ a week from the taxpayer.

    She goes public to the media decrying the loss of some student allowance.

    She did not disclose how much money she was already receiving from the taxpayer, (in fact more money than the average weekly income of a person in paid employment_.

    Bennett disclosed how much the woman was being given by the taxpayer, and in so doing put the woman’s claims in context, for the benefit of those who actually pay this woman her welfare, by working for their living.

    During the Privacy Commission’s involvement it sought unsuccessfully to get Bennett to agree to the taxpayer paying $12,000 to Fuller to heal her hurt feelings.

    This has nothing to do with privacy or hurt feelings. It’s all about some slapper ripping of the taxpayer to fund her lifestyle.

    In future, Bennett should use Parliamentary privilege to ensure the whole story is disclosed so the likes of the Privacy commission and Human Right Tribunal can not spend tens of thousands of dollars of staff time investigating a vexatious complaint motivated by greed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    I have cut and pasted a section of a decision found on the Privacy Commissioner’s website illustrating circumstances where there may be implied authorisation. If you extend the analogy, one could argue that in this case the Minister could have had reasonable cause to believe that the complainants had authorised disclosure of sufficient information to enable the Minister to respond to the criticism. If the complainants had been talking in general terms then it would be unreasonable for the minister to disclose personal information (i.e. state what benefits the complainants were receiving and the amounts involved). If the complainants had been talking in specific terms (i.e., making statements about what they were receiving), then it is much more arguable that the Minister was justified in releasing the information.

    “Principle 11(d) permits disclosure of personal information if the agency reasonably believes that the disclosure is authorised by the individual concerned. Normally, a positive act of authorisation is required for an agency to rely on this exception. Occasionally, however, authorisation can be implied. This was the case here.

    In my view, by laying a complaint with the Law Society, the woman had accepted that the firm would have to defend itself. To do so, it would have to give the Law Society relevant information that it held in relation to the dispute and the work it had done for her. It was obvious to anyone that the Law Society could not make a decision based on one-sided information. Any response from the firm would, to some extent, disclose the nature of the woman’s dealings with the firm. The file note was relevant to the firm’s defence because it demonstrated the difficulties involved with the dispute, and therefore showed the nature of the work that the firm had had to undertake. Providing the file note allowed the Law Society to determine whether the complaints were justified. I was therefore satisfied that principle 11(d) extended to permit disclosure in these circumstances. It was reasonable for the firm to believe that the woman had impliedly authorised it to provide relevant details of the dispute and her dealings with the firm to the Law Society.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Adolf
    “Read this and weep. Such is the illiterate state of those who purport to be intelligent.”

    Not sure of your point. Are you saying that “implied authorisation” is a non-existent beast?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rat (383 comments) says:

    theres gonna be some Individuals in ACC scratching their heads at this one

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Rat
    Why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Steve (North Shore) (4,560 comments) says:

    A few here seem to have Pullar and Fuller mixed up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    You Neolibs are confusing me on this one.

    I thought you liked a certain amount of beneficiaries, underemployed or unemployed in society.

    That way you can drive down wages and working conditions, as the lowest paid are forced to fight for work.

    If there are no beneficiaries, you would have to go back to bashing ‘Maoris’. That wouldn’t help you cosy arrangement with the Maori Party.

    You Neolibs need to be more strategic in your thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Pullar and Fuller – thought they were they same person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. KH (695 comments) says:

    I support Paula Bennett releasing this information. If anybody gets a slap from some commissioner it should be the jerk who complain and uses only partial information. Maybe the commission should consider my ‘human right’ not to be flimflamed by half the story. It’s very tedious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Easy to fix. Chop the benefit and then listen to the slapper moan.
    Wasn’t she also shacked up with someone as well. Isn’t that illegal if its not disclosed and the benefit adjusted accordingly.
    Didn’t she also have student loans.
    Sorry but I’m fed up with working my arse off to support bludgers like this.
    Looking for a way to pay no more tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Bronwyn Pullar and Natasha Fuller are not da same chickadee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Viking2

    Looking for a way to pay no more tax.

    Easy (if rather painful!) really, become a property developer. I havent paid tax since 2008!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. BillODrees (94 comments) says:

    Bennett displays a number of interesting behavioural traits in her actions and in her letter to the Commissioner.

     Traits of a Personality “Aggressive narcissism” are:

    Glibness/superficial charm, Grandiose sense of self-worth, Cunning/manipulative, Lack of remorse or guilt, Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric), Callousness; lack of empathy, Failure to accept responsibility for own actions. Have a fill read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

    Not pit for a position of power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    Sheesh Bill; that description above fits Trevor Mallard and Winston Peters to perfection :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. BillODrees (94 comments) says:

    All three of them have similar behavioural traits. Unfortunately Bennett is a minister who should be empathetic to those among us who have difficulties in life. Fortunately many of those Labour MPs who listened to Mallard and Robertson and supported Shearer have seen the real nastiness of the ABC campaign. Mallard is politically dead. If Shearer does not read the last writes, Cunliffe will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    It’s obvious that Paula is against people speaking out.

    I guess she likes the idea that everybody should shut up while she blabs her head off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    I still can’t get my head around Bennett being a Crown Minister. Doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.

    What positive qualities does she have?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Hamnida…
    What positive qualities does she have?

    And what do you have? Please tell us? Are you more qualified than her? If so, then what field? I’m keen to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. BillODrees (94 comments) says:

    Falafulu,
    The minister (and current MP for Waitakere) is in question here. Not Hamida. Attacking Hamida’s right to criticise the minister makes you sound like …….the minister.

    So, Falafulu, answer Hamida’s question. What positive qualities does Bennett have? Reminder: the traits listed above are those of a very undesirable person. You would not like to work or live near one.

    Which of the attributes above do you say does not apply to Bennett?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Well look at it this way, I am qualified. I am going to do some Google searches on her – perhaps she is qualified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    BA in social work. I am guessing there aren’t too many National MPs with social work degrees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    And a friend of McCullys, so I am guessing no friend of working people.

    I doubt I would get on with Bennett and McCully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Falafulu – Still waiting for those positive qualities Bennett has. What could they be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Hamnida, so what qualification then for someone to be a minister of the Social Development? Is it a PhD in economics? How about PhD in education? Umm, may be Dr. Lockwood Smith qualifies. How about a PhD in Engineering? That would be Dr. Nick Smith. A PhD in Physics? I don’t think of anyone in the current crop of National MPs that qualifies. Then please tell me, what sort of qualification is needed for someone to be a minister of Social Development? I’m interested to know. If all you do is useless snide remarks about Ms Bennet, then I have to say sir, that you have no clue as to what qualification is needed for someone to be a minister of the Social Development Dept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    It’s interesting to note that the two current Minister hatchet men are actually not men at all.
    I guess the bloke Ministers are busy getting their nails done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. BillODrees (94 comments) says:

    Hamida,
    What you will NOT find on Bennett is:
    She is a poor Westie Maori girl who had a teenage pregnancy and dragged herself up by her by her boot straps and “made good”. That is the spin she and the party managers get the media to swallow without question.

    She is from a very comfortable and supportive pakeha culture family. She got to Uni. She got plenty of state aid. She worked in MPs offices and got into the Party career process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Falafulu – It is Bennett under the microscope, not me.

    The day I’m on the public payroll I’ll explain myself.

    I don’t think you can honestly say Lockwood Smith has a real Phd, it’s more of a quasi doctorate because no academic could peer review a thesis on that topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Hamnida, let me throw your question back at you. Lets say that the the Minister that you criticized is not Paula Bennet, but someone else, say Stephen Joyce. Would you still be asking the same question or not? I bet that you would still ask the same question. Now, think of it in this way. Regardless of who the Minister of Social Development is, you would still ask the same question of what qualities does that person have. The conclusion is, you would still answer the same question regardless of who the minister of Social Development is. Don’t you see that there is an infinite regression in the type of question you’re asking? If you disagree with what I’m saying here, then please suggest a better alternative to Ms Bennet from the current National MPs in parliament. State & justify your reasoning with examples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Reid (16,441 comments) says:

    BA in social work.

    How much weeping, wailing, hugging, poi twirling, hand wrenching and rending of clothes does that degree involve Hamnida?

    I’m only asking since that’s what seems mostly to happen in social work as practised these days so I’m assuming that’s what you guys get taught. Along with supercilious arrogance and sneering of course but I’ve always assumed you social workers pick those up on the side as part of your training as lefty activists since it’s bad enough getting the other things from my taxes let alone those latter two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. BillODrees (94 comments) says:

    And Bennett is not a Westie. She is from Taupo. The Aggressive Narcissicistic description fits here too: everything about her gets distorted. She even distorts her origin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Falafulu – Sorry, can’t follow your writing or line of reasoning.

    Perhaps you are trying to say who out of the current National caucus would be better than Bennett.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Yes, what a complete Liar. Always going on about being a Westie, when she’s really from Taupo and the North Shore.

    I guess the Torys use her as a tool out West to get the bogan vote. Quite a good idea if you’re into spin and PR. I wonder who’s idea that was, Michelle Boag or perhaps that racist firm from Aussie the Neolibs use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. BillODrees (94 comments) says:

    Reid, Bennett has the BA In Social Work, not Hamida.
    Slow down. Engage brain. Type. Check. Send.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Reid, I am not a social worker or qualified in that area. In any case, it’s Bennett’s credibility on the line here, not that of a lay person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Hamnida, yes, who do you think that should have been picked as the Minister of Social Development from the current National MPs in parliament? Explain why your pick is better than Ms Bennet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. BillODrees (94 comments) says:

    Falafulu, focus please. The blog is about Bennett.

    Either put up a defence for her or get off the stage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    BillODrees, that’s what I’m trying to find out. If it’s Tau Henare who is the Minister that outed Fuller for her lies, then you would still say or ask the same thing, wouldn’t you? You would still ask for the positive qualities of Tau. Now, replace Tau with Niki Kaye as the Minister. You would still ask the same thing. The point is, regardless of who the minister is, you would still moan about that minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Paula Bennett seems to have moved on, actually so does Natasha Fuller, and most of New Zealand.
    Who gives a shit? Nobody who I’d care to have a beer with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    BillODrees

    “And Bennett is not a Westie. She is from Taupo. The Aggressive Narcissicistic description fits here too: everything about her gets distorted. She even distorts her origin.”

    All of that might be true Bill. One thing we know she is though Bill and that is the local MP, she beat that sour faced Sepaloni and for that we should all be thankful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    the reality here is the minister was out of line. It matters not whether this woman was a beneficiary. Bennett accessed this woman’s files and released that information to the public. Judith Collins has made it clear that the government will not stand for privacy breaches. Perhaps she should have a wee chat to her colleague Bennett.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    “One thing we know she [Bennett] is though Bill and that is the local MP, she beat that sour faced Sepaloni and for that we should all be thankful.”

    Ka….. ching! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Fuller thought she could be a smart arse and was used as a political pawn and got found out for what she really was- a bludger, well looked after by the state, and very economical with the truth. It came back to bite her on her smart arse.

    Paula Bennett could have handled this a lot better but big deal move on. Fuller has, Bennett has – just the left haters havn’t.

    I constantly see a lot of hate in lefties to people who dont agree with thier world view – which often include personal attacks by gutless, nameless blog cowards

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    IIRC, Charles Chauvel “advised” Ms Fuller on taking the complaint to the Privacy Commission. If anyone believes that the faux outrage towards Paula Bennett is anything other than political posturing…

    And to Hamnida and Bill ODrees; Bennett has never claimed to be a born and bred Westie

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Rat (383 comments) says:

    Mark @7.11am

    Bingo !! re my 5.40pm post

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    I am still confused Pullar and Fuller.

    Are you the same Fisi who stood for the Conservative Party in 2011?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Hamnida…
    Are you the same Fisi who stood for the Conservative Party in 2011?

    Nope! In political philosophy, I’m far away from the principles of the Conservative Party. Sure, there’s common grounds there but overall I’m different to what they believe but it doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for them just to keep Labour/Greens/NZ-First out. I’m ACT/Libertarianz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Not only is Bennett a pathetic bully, she is a liar too. She bangs on about beneficiaries failing drug tests, but it turns out she hasn’t received any information on the issue. In other words, she has no idea what she is talking about but is happy to make shit up. And to think Bennett used to be a beneficiary…

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1208/S00221/drug-testing-beneficiaries-attempt-to-blame-the-unemployed.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Fairfacts Media (372 comments) says:

    Ah yes, Natasha Fuller, the Trade Me Trougher.
    http://pacificempire.org.nz/2009/07/29/welfare-and-business-grants-natasha-fuller/
    That brings back a few memories.
    It seems that You Tube video is till out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Fairfacts Media (372 comments) says:

    And as Dave at Big News reported, Natasha Fuller did mucvh to breach her own privacy by what she posted on Facebook and in chat rooms.
    http://big-news.blogspot.co.nz/2009/07/claims-that-fuller-was-getting-winz.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    C,mon lefties it really is ok to critisize welfare bludgers – Josie Pagani thinks its the smart thing to do http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/08/pagani-on-dole-bludgers-and-roofing/

    Your personal attacks on Bennett are pathetic – predictable – but still pathetic

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Ross69 – The fact of the matter is there are some jobs that it is not safe to do if you are under the influence of drugs end of story. What more information do you need?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    And Ross69 – its ironic you call Paula Bennett a liar and link to an article that references the serial liar Helen Kelly as its source.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    ross69: “…no idea what she is talking about but is happy to make shit up.”

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Fisi – I see ACT and the Libertarianz are polling very well currently. Perhaps because so many New Zealanders like their policies.

    I think some of you Neolibs are missing the point, Bennett’s the hypocrite and bully here. Beneficiary turned beneficiary basher.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    And today Bennett is behaving like a 3 year old…she really does need to consider her future in Parliament.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/a/6/b/50HansQ_20120816_00000004-4-Poverty-Reduction-Minister-s-Statements.htm

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