Written By: - Date published: 1:06 pm, July 28th, 2009 - 129 comments
Categories: national/act government -
Tags: paula bennett
I’m no expert in these things but Paula “bully” Bennett appears to have put herself in breach of the cabinet manual by disclosing private information about her critics’ personal finances for her own political gain.
Cabinet Manual p 117:
8.60 The disclosure of information about an individual by Ministers is governed by both the Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1993.
(c) A release by a Minister of information about an individual, in the absence of a request for it, is governed by Principle 11 of the Privacy Act 1993. That principle allows only limited situations in which it would be appropriate to disclose personal information; for example:
- if the disclosure is directly related to the purposes for which the information was obtained;
- if disclosure is authorised by the individual concerned; or
- if disclosure is necessary to prevent a serious threat to public health or the life of another individual.
Breaching the cabinet manual is a serious matter. The appropriate course of action would be for Bennett to resign. Or, if she refuses to, for the Prime Minister to sack her.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Bright Red
Im pretty sure it was Labour.
The mistake is that it wasn’t a law. It was something about permitted use of footage provided by Parliament TV, and I’m pretty sure they didn’t go through with it in the end.
I used to work at a government dept where our clients regularly went to the media – often with a doctored version of the truth. It was annoying as all hell, but we abided by the privacy act, and didn’t release their private information to the public.
We have a privacy act for a reason – it’s not for Ministers to pick and choose.
Captcha: owed
A living? Bennett?
Paula sux!!!!!!!!!!
Breaching the cabinet manual is a serious matter. The appropriate course of action would be for Bennett to resign.
Where were you and your high horse this time last year. Winston Peters, anyone?
ben – let’s be clear, you wanted Peters gone and now you want Bennett gone too?
Well done, me too.
It would be hypocritical of you not to want her gone, having called for Peters’ blood. And I know you’re not a hypocrite.
Apart from Paula finding that the abuse of power is apparently acceptable under the stasi type law operating under a NACT government her immediate superior, John Key, has endorsed her behaviour.
Surely such an endorsement of abuse of power merits two immediate resignations or challenges of abuse of the privacy act?
I certainly can’t see anyone having a lot of confidence in anyone who, on being elected to office, abuse the powers they have as Cabinet Ministers.
Paula Bennet’s behaviour is totally unacceptable in a democracy and Key’s support is an indication of his arrogance and ignorance of the processes of democracy. This isn’t a nanny state it is definitely a stasi state.
Meanwhile since there is no money for solo mums ( or dads) to go onto tertiary training the pixy dust has reappeared in another government program.
This from SPARC
he country’s world class athletes will receive significant funding boosts worth tens of thousands of dollars annually.
Sport and Recreation New Zealand (Sparc) announced today that under its new performance enhancement grants (PEGs) criteria, a world champion in an Olympic discipline will get $60,000, up from $40,000, and a medallist in an Olympic discipline will get $55,000, up from $35,000 previously.
Sparc said it had also introduced multi-year grants under the new criteria.
The new grants have been back-dated to take effect from July 1 this year.
I guess Bennett wasnt involved in this one, so no FU
ghostwhowalks:
Didn’t the labour government give millions to nzonair to fund crap like outrageous fortune and a generic scribe album
Certainly more Kiwis were actaully employed than John Key’s $50 million, concrete pathed cycle race – oh sorry, $9 million gravel cycle track – oh sorry, network of cycle tracks – oh sorry, uncosted, proposed network of cycle tracks . . . that was going to employ 3,700 – oh sorry, 350 – oh, sorry 2 beauracrats and maybe 100 part time workers . . .
Just seen one network news, it seems Fuller has a rather large house and a very expensive computer, she anit no victim that is for sure.
lol – was quite a pad the poor battler from struggle St. is putting up with.
Liked Frans comments about Bennett being honest and up front where as other parties just leak the info to the media cough – labour – cough..
Did anyone see question time? I love it how Charles Chauvel asked her what steps she had taken and her answer was basically “big ones”
Are you kidding us, Brett? Did you expect her to be wallowing in filth, ragged urchins tugging at the hem of her tattered skirt? I think the fact that she is clever and disciplined enough to be looking to further her education suggests that she is capable of organising her life, her house and her possessions.
The point is that Basher Bennett has exposed herself as a bully. A bully in charge of the ministry that should be protecting and supporting these two women and their families.
“she is clever and disciplined enough ” to blow $10’000 of tax payers $$ on a failed cleaning business. Is she going to pay it back?
So you’d be happy for your personal details to be released to “add balance” to your political opinions mike?
they had already outed all their personal details by talking to the news media, establishing a website and writing a blog – they just left out the bits that made them look a little greedy.
No they didn’t Mike. They didn’t for example talk about their rent or how many kids they have or their illnesses or the names of their ex-partners. And they shouldn’t have had to because they were private citizens talking about one allowance.
In fact Mike, you’ve committed more of your personal details to the public through this blog over the last couple of years than they had in the media up to the point Bennett broke the law and outed them.
By your logic that should give anybody the right to start releasing your details in public.
Or is it different for you?
as duncan garner said under helens crew they would have leaked to a tame jurno so when left wing supporters are screaming abuse at paula bennett i surgest you guys look at the bolgasphere and see what ordanary people are saying .ps it supports paulas action you guys are helping national please keep it up
Didn’t she go on the trademe site to say she has been living with her partner?
Source please, instead of unsubstantiated rumours.
And it’s nothing but a constant /facepalm at all the gormless idiots who can’t wrap their heads around the fact that what matters here isn’t how much these two women are getting, it’s Bennett’s breach of ethics and the Privacy Act.
Is this the Standard Trademe Forum? It’s solo city over there.
Up to date with your child support are you, Dad? Better be careful, the John key National Government Inc will check and publish if you say the wrong thing. Here at The Standard you’ll just get told to fuck off. So why don’t you?
Keep it up, boys, Basher needs the help.
The issue is whether it’s acceptable for a Minister to use her power in this way. I suggest it’s not and the Privacy Act, the Cabinet Manual and, just a guess here, oh, a few hundred years of parliamentary tradition seem to agree with me.
And, Graham? This ‘bolgasphere’ you refer to. Why do I find it? Does Jim know?
TVOR, I believe Graham was referring to the bolgersphere which was the last place we saw this kind of beneficiary bashing from a minister of social development.
NickS
It was mentioned on smilecity, that she wrote on the trademe forum about living with her partner.
Still good on her, shes on the dpb, and can afford a two story lockwood home, rather nice, judging by the footage of it on tvnz, also a nice wee laptop.
She must be a good with her budget.
Source, as in provide this wonderful think called a “url” aka link, not a “it was on smile city”, which given the size of that cess-pit of forum, tells me little. Besides, without direct corroboration, in other words a link to her actual words, rather than a second hand account on a bloody internet forum, the claim you provide is pretty damn worthless.
And one other thing, that nice house is probably rental, or was acquired before what ever circumstances which lead her to be on the DPB, which probably also counts for the lap-top. Although the lap-top may have been acquired through student loan course related costs. Besides, this point you continue to raise, it’s still stupid, because the problem here is that Bennett has abused her privileges as the Minister of Social Development to release private information she had no right to release under the law.
Then again, having lurked on realclimate and Orac’s blog, I should be used to people ragging on about things that are entirely tangential to the topic at hand. So I shouldn’t expect so much.
/shrug
This appeared in a recent Listener article:
Viliami Haloholo, 23, was jailed in 2007 for four years for attacking a party-goer with a fence paling, leaving the victim with a broken jaw and a 10cm gash to his head. Haloholo was reportedly a member of the Thugs of Canal street gang. Bennett has worked hard to help Haloholo redeem himself, inviting him to live with Ana and his child at her house for six months before sentencing. In 2007 she wrote in support of him at sentencing, offering continuing accommodation and seeking to avoid a prison term. And in 2008 she wrote to the Parole Board offering to let Haloholo be paroled to her house again.
“He has put his mistakes of the past behind him and I believe that with the support of his partner (my daughter), his family and myself, he will lead a good life and not ever be before the courts again,’ said Bennett in the 2008 letter The Parole Board did not share Bennett’s faith in Haloholo, turning down his parole bid. It said he was “an identified drug user’ in prison and had “numerous incident reports’ on his prison file, one just a month before the parole hearing. Bennett has always refused to talk publicly about Haloholo, apart from releasing a statement saying it was an error of judgment not to inform Key about the matter. Haloholo is due for release in 2011. Does she plan to renew her offer of a home for him next time he comes up for parole? She initially hedges. “At the moment all you know is what you’ve read in the papers. I actually think that I deserve you know, it’s not so much I deserve a level of privacy, I believe my family do. So I’m going to respect their privacy.’
Hmmm, she has no respect for others’ privacy, but she is keen to protect that of her family. Why the double standard?
Thanks. I knew I’d seen that but couldn’t remember where. I think that’s the same article that talks about Bennett and her fellow National Inc Ladies Club managing to get a Wellington shoe shop to open after hours for them. Nice, eh?
I wonder if she has spoken to Alf Garrett in the Act Party about what he reckons would be the best way to get Viliami out of jail early?
Well, the double standard is far too typical in politics…