Written By: - Date published: 1:02 pm, April 30th, 2010 - 230 comments
Categories: benefits, corruption, national/act government -
Tags: paula bennett
Update2: IrishBill: The facebook email has been released:
Things went really well she wasn’t that scary I dropped the tears a few times and she felt sorry for me wont put me back in the media and get me hurt again and willing to talk settlement. I’ve got a tough choice to make have two days to come up with what I want as a payment I don’t want to sound greedy but its hard to put price on what iv been through
As Danyl points out over at the DimPost this doesn’t look like a joke so much as a breach of a confidential agreement that needed to be passed off as a joke. I only hope Fuller got a decent payment after what was done to her.
[Update: TV3 now admits its 'emails' were a Facebook exchange between Fuller and a friend and Fuller says she made up about the money. For fuck's sake, TV3, you can't run a story based on someone's Facebook comments. Still, Bennett should not have been meeting with a complainant just before the report is due out. It's clear she is looking to avoid an embarrassment]
Yesterday I thought I was going to write a piece on the advisers Paula Bennett has appointed to the Welfare Working Group. There’s Peter Saunders, a man who says there is a link between “low average intelligence and low class position” – that people are poor because they are dumb – and that the DPB makes welfare dependence attractive (Saunders is in high company on that belief – “breeding for a business” Key called it). And then there’s ex-ACT President Catherine Issac who wants a “competitive market for sickness, invalid, and unemployment insurance” – profit-seeking parasites taking a slice of the welfare budget.
Or how she has her ministry writing to Kiwis asking them to spy on their neighbours who are getting a benefit. This goes far beyond an invasion of the privacy of people who are entitled to assistance when they fall on hard times. It’s the nasty turning of neighbour on neighbour that reminds us of East Germany, Orwell’s 1984, or Thatcher’s Britain.
But her attempt to bribe Natasha Fuller into silence overrides those issues, for now.
You’ll remember how Natasha Fuller was one of two DPB mums who dared to question why Bennett had canceled a training allowance designed to help DPB mums get off the benefit – an allowance that Bennett herself took advantage of. For their trouble, Bennett released their private benefit information unleashing a torrent of bigotry on these poor women that was so vicious Fuller had to move house and get counseling.
Now, we learn that Bennett had a meeting with Fuller on Wednesday and, according to Fuller, offered her money to drop her complaint with the Privacy Commissioner (which raises questions about why the second DPB mum, Jennifer Johnston, suddenly dropped her complaint after meeting Bennett).
With Palin-esque implausibility, Bennett refuses to confirm or deny meeting with Fuller. [overtaken by new facts as above]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Those are some serious allegations Eddie – I do hope for your sake that you have seen the source documents that prove such a claim, instead of simply relying on a news article – especially when there are conflicting reports as to the veracity of such reports. Unlike IrishBill’s post which referenced the allegations, you come right out and state as a fact that she has taken a bribe and called her corrupt. I would love to see your evidence – and not a reference to some comment made, but an actual quote or email would be good. I’m not defending or condoning – just taking a rational, evidenced based position. Something that sadly seems to be lacking from you and others posting here.
people are entitled to rely on media reports.
ps. your blog is really weird.
Only if they reflect the media report, as IrishBill’s did.
And thank you
people may be entitled to rely on media reports
but if they actually do so then they’re fools – there is so little genuine investigative journalism in mainstream media you’d be hard pressed to find anything other than cut-and-paste copywork and beat-up sensationalism.
…hard pressed to find anything other than cut-and-paste copywork and beat-up sensationalism.
Sounds like kiwiblog…
In this morning’s New Zealand Herald, the complainant was quoted as saying there had been no offer of money. When asked about the 3 News report, the complainant said: “None of that is true”.
So Bennett and Fuller both reject the TV3 allegations.
And no evidence to the contrary has been tabled by TV3 – time for TV3 to apologise or stump up with the goods.
Ditto Eddie – looks like you’ve been sucked in by some shabby reporting from a little creep as Helen kindly described him
Cutting and pasting links is not that frakking hard, so source please.
Source is NZ Herald print edition – cut and paste that frakking link buddy
[lprent: The NZ Herald puts the whole of its print edition online. You should be able to easily locate a link. Nick thinks that you're bullshitting and I do as well.
Since you haven't produced a link when asked, show no signs of doing so, and haven't withdrawn, you're banned for a week for bad behaviour in the debate - see the policy. ]
However, The Herald sticks up it’s print edition articles on it’s website, likewise what you’ve claimed would be rather tasty for the rest of the media, so it’s somewhat perplexing it hasn’t been cut n pasted by another media site. Like Stuff, or Scoop, for which one has yet to see the claims you make repeated.
Also, there’s these wonderful things called “digital cameras” these days, which I hear you can use to take “photos” and then upload these to the internet, thus providing evidence of things in print only.
Which is to say, I think you’re lying, and will otherwise till I see evidence to the contrary you douche-hound.
lprent – sorry for failing to post a link to the print edition – the link was not posted because I had a meeting to go to – my bad.
In any case here’s an updated link where Fuller confirms Paula Bennet’s version of events.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10642021
[lprent: That is a saturday morning granny herald story based on a friday night TV3 story. I banned you on friday afternoon because you were referring to a friday morning granny story as your source in your assertion of fact. Can you see into the future or work at TV3? I'd accept the latter could give you an inside source., but doesn't excuse blaming the story on the poor old granny. The ban stands - it is only a week. ]
Lawl:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3641270/Bennett-meets-complaint-mum
And looking on The Herald’s website, it’s pretty clear it’s Bennett doing the denying, rather than Fuller, who hasn’t been in contact with the media since yesterday.
probably lying one?
The Herald online clearly has Bennett doing the denying and no comment from Fuller being recorded apart from her claim of having to move address to escape harassment.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10641678
Sourced it to that fool DPF, via Dirk D’s comment in the Corrupt comment thread:
And funnily enough, once more there’s no sign of a statement from Fuller which matches DPF’s claims, nor in the press release he linked to, but I wouldn’t expect anything less from DPF, nor from the fools in the comments section who don’t call him out for such an obvious lie.
Oh, and DPF, if you are lurking, source please.
Jesus Eddie, how dumb are you. This one is going to hurt !!!
personally I thought her action in naming the women should have led to her sacking or resignation. Unforgiveable abuse of power.
would that be anything like Helen Clark labeling John Yelash as a murderer or her unjustified criticism of Auckland surgeon Joe Brownlee? – unforgiveable abuses of power!
From memory, John Yelash was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. More a matter of semantics of intent than anything else.
do you also recall that “matter of semantics of intent” resulted in an out of court settlement after Yelash sued Clark?
Do you remember Lange vs Atkinson? Probably not, you don’t appear to be aware of much past slogans.
The situation for talking about a moronic politician are quite different to those of a private citizen.
That’s not a very nice way to refer to Lange.
So what you’re saying, Joe B is that when ministers get it wrong, they should get the punishment they deserve. Clark called a killer a murderer and paid defamation for this technically false statement.
What should Bennett’s punishment be?
[deleted]
[lprent: You've been banned for a week. ]
Do I even have to point out how wrong is not only the original statement, but your attempted defence of it?
Most of what you write suggests you’re anything but a shrill ideologue Lynn, but somehow when it comes to defending Helen the scales form on your eyes.
Not really, I know both Helen and John Yelash. It wasn’t an abuse of power (which was the origional statement) because the usual legal process went ahead and resulted in an out-of-court settlement. I was just pointing out the facts of the case.
JB got a ban for an argument he had in another thread with Nick S where he made an assertion and failed to attempt to back it up.
Not arguing with your banning, LP. But there’s a world of difference beyond the semantic in calling someone convicted of manslaughter (which can be a reflection of something as relatively minor as negligence or recklessness) a murderer, which implies intent.
I have no idea what Mr Yelash did to be convicted of manslaughter but whatever it was, he doesn’t deserve to be called a murderer any more than do you or I.
This wasn’t an involuntary slip of the tongue – the clear intent was to discredit Yelash’s account and bolster Chris Carter’s.
There’s not even a logical basis for such a smear – even serial killers tell the truth sometimes, so criminal does not automatically equal liar and Clark would have known that and voiced the slur with the clear intent of discrediting Yelash.
Sometimes, it pays to be as apparently dimwitted as Paula Bennett because then you can get away with saying “Duh, I just didn’t think…” But even her worst enemies wouldn’t call Clark stupid.
Just because someone is compensated at a later date doesn’t negate the abuse of power that occurs when someone in a powerful position attacks a member of the public.
Being one of the few people to have been in that position, when Ron Mark dredged the bottom of the barrel in 2008, I know you feel utterly outgunned. And seeing him tossed out of the House, while some consolation (as I’m sure was Mr Yelash’s payout) only went part of the way to make up for ir.
Great questions from Catherine Delahunty and revealing answers from Paula Bennett, particularly to the question of representation of disabled people on a working party that is targetting them. The academic PB mentions is from the area of rehabilition, which is not the same as the disability sector.
Last straw EDDIE
More like clutching at straws
Surgical straws? Modern, surgical straws?
Modern surgical straws?
Joe Bloggs: “In this morning’s New Zealand Herald, the complainant was quoted as saying there had been no offer of money. When asked about the 3 News report, the complainant said: “None of that is true’.”
I am a long way away from the Herald. A pity that I can’t read for myself. Was the Complainant refuting:
-the TV3 interview in general not true?
-just the money aspect being not true?
-the visit as being not true?
I suppose something will be clarified shortly now doubt that there really is a major issue. Pity that.
Oh my god, you people really are clutching at straws now!
In my humble opinion Paula is doing a fantastic job with her portfolio; long may it continue.
I think Eddie should withdraw and apologise.
[lprent: Definitely has pretensions to be a Baldrick clone. I haven't seen so much pathetic fawning for quite a while. You get the impression that he is going to start drooling like a spaniel shortly. ]
Pointless point Dirk D!
My girlfriend asked me last night to start a flamewar/parody on a website and watch it flourish. I work with a guy named Tim and I just watched boogie nights.
To all those who commented or reference me in this and the other thread i thank you. You were my pawns.
A special mention goes to lprent. He has moderated my tongue in cheek comments in the past and almost always knows when i am having a lark.
Onto the actual subject matter though. I think it was a poor piece of reporting, from an underfunded news room.
As for Eddie and IrishBill your dog whistles did the job. The commenting and general loon behavior is a disapointing feature of the opposition movement in this country.
Paula Bennetts profile has been tarnished and while some of it was of her own making, her opposition will be feeling happy enough tonight with the outcome.
Thanks
This was featured on a national news show. It’s hardly a straw, it’s a hay bale.
And glad you think revealing someone’s private details is de rigeur. Care to volunteer to have your government held data made public?
“I haven’t seen so much pathetic fawning for quite a while”
I suggest you watch parliament on TV – whenever Key or Goff are standing up speaking the fawning from those sitting behind them is vomitous !
It was a very expensive case of “semantics” for the taxpayer lprent
“The man who collected $55,000 in a taxpayer-funded defamation payout from Prime Minister Helen Clark says the settlement has cost him his health and career”.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=200319
$55k plus legal expenses, just for using the wrong word – sheesh, that should sound a warning for people who toss words like “corrupt” and “bribe” around, don’t you think
Nope – the situations are not similar. In NZ politicians don’t have the same level of protection under defamation or libel that private citizens have.
You should remember the Lange vs Atkinson case that established that in NZ precedent. It has been discussed often enough when you’ve been loitering around.
I guess you’re just attempting to stir….
Who, me?
Yeah, I do it enough that I can recognise the signs…
How funny . Some people cant even see the difference between a private citizen ( even a convicted one) and a politician. The defamation laws( and precedent) treat them differently.
Bennett wont be sueing anytime soon, despite her threats to TV3, remember she was full of bluster when she broke the privacy laws too.
Note as well she was relying on the other parties claims( as reported??) , why doesnt she refute them herself.
Why wouldn’t she?
With not a shred of evidence TV3 shrieked that she had offered “hush money’ to settle the complaint. Now it transpires there was no evidence, and TV3 didn’t check their sources. And after all that the meeting was perfectly appropriate and sanctioned by the Privacy Commissioner. And the other party cheerfully admitted to haveing made it all up.
I’d sue. And I’m a journalist!
“And I’m a journalist!”
Clearly – it’s the spelling that gives it away.
maybe.
But then again, it’s starting to seem as if getting sued for defamation might be the only way citizens have to find out what’s going on in cabinet.
Still don’t know why Worth was forced out of parliament, and now it’s starting to look like there is no recourse if a minister breaks the privacy act for political reasons.
That’s the point I’ve yet to see any of you excity righties touch.
If this can be settled privately, and the PM chooses not to question anything, then how can the public know if the Minister did in fact breach the privacy act, which she certainly appears to have done?
If she did breach it, is that just ok?
The claim that ‘there is a link between”low average intelligence and low class position” does not necessarily imply “that people are poor because they are dumb”. It could mean that people have lower intelligence because they are poor. We all surely accept that poor people have poorer educations than wealthy or averagely-off people–in general–and maybe it is the lack of education, the lack of adequate nurturing and care at school and at home which poor children offen suffer that leads to lower performance in intelligence tests (if that’s how he’s measuring intelligence). In which case, it’s not really an unreasonable claim, is it? I’d like to know what else makes this guy so unreasonable.
prosaic. we ball know the guy is making a Randian argument – the wealthy are the heroes, the brilliant minds who carry the rest of us, and the rest of us don’t deserve to be carried.
You assume that we ‘ball’ know that but what about those of us who know little about him–perhaps the author of the post could give us a reasonable analysis of him rather than an invalid argument.
I just hope this is not swept under the carpet and lost.The facial expressions of Bennet on parliament TV when questioned about this incident were revealing.They made this old campaigner very uncomfortable . I would hate to be a solo mum under this nasty two faced women. Tthere’s no doubt the Nat’s will do their best to keep this out of public view . the whole of the Left must keep digging on this.
I bet Crosby/Textor is working overtime .
Some MPs taunt and ridicule other MPs. Seems sort of normal somehow, but I intensely dislike the venom and straight out nastiness that Paula Bennett spouts at times. It would not be comfortable at close quarters say in the same house. My wife is a funny good person to be with. Lucky me!
Much like Obama’s birth certificate, if Ms Bennett wants us to believe she never made such an offer then all she has to do is table the relevant documentation – all correspondence between the parties, diary notes of any meetings and conversations etc. After redacting any more personal information about Ms Fuller, of course.
Similarly, TV3 could release the emails it claims to have. In fact why wouldn’t it make these the centrepiece of the story rather than (as I understand it) simply referencing their existence.
We’re not well served, it seems, by either our elected representatives or our media.
I reckon the emails are leaked from the Privacy Commission.
Would even Bennett be dopey enought to cc the Privacy Commission in on the offer of a bribe?
If so, I fear I’m about to use up my laughter quotient for the entire year.
I can see it now, the harried aide bursts into the room and explains. Bennett, flushing a deeper shade of leopard starts to mutter:
“Privacy commission? Not bribery comm…”
Bennett rushes to hit “recall this message”, not knowing what the rest of the world does…that recall this message is a fucking waste of time.
Oh this is ripe for comedy…
Bennett: “But the recall thingy worked on that ‘shut ya hole or my daughter’s boyfriend will fuck youz up’ email!!”
Aide: “Errr, no Minister, they just didn’t believe it came from you”
Bennett: “What, even after I drew that dagger dripping blood on it? Look, the vivid marker is still here on the screen…”
They really should have stuck with glass fronted CRTs, so much easier to clean the vivid/underling blood off…
“It’s the nasty turning of neighbour on neighbour that reminds us of East Germany, Orwell’s 1984, or Thatcher’s Britain.”
Way over the top, and untrue. Neighbour turned on neighbour in Soviet Regimes and 1984 either through desire for very real rewards or through fear they would suffer for the neighbour’s guilt if they didn’t. Neither situation exists in New Zealand. And as a resident of Thatcher’s Britain during the period referred to I have no recollection of any attempt to turn neighbour on neighbour.
I’d describe myself as left of centre – which is why I come here – and I’m no fan of Thatcher or what she did, but “Thatcher’s Britain” is too often and too thoughtlessly used as a bogey by Left-wing commentators, devaluing their arguments and merely displaying thoughtlessness.
“..I have no recollection of any attempt to turn neighbour on neighbour.”
Miners strike? Just as a throw a way example.
1951. then they actually made it illegal to help your neighbours, even just give them food, if the father was a waterfronter.
Not a good look if the “Privacy” Commission leaks like a sieve.
Don’t know if you’re right though, BR. I think Bennett would have been demanding all e-mails they have sent by now. As I understand it, she has made denials to other media outlets too since TV3. So I thought she would have been a little more reticent to make media statements. If you are right we might hear something from her tonight.
I expect “I resign” would be appropriate if she is actually caught fibbing.
Paula Bennett, with all the allegations of doubtful, on the edge behaviour and abuse of position, should be under a very public warning from her immediate superior/s if not being given the cardboard box and a request for her office keys. However, one doubts if Key has the integrity enough to do so.
From Lee to Worth to English to Brownlee to Heatley to Smith and Hide the trail of shonky behaviour gets longer and longer. At what point will the media find evidence of the “smoking gun”?
This just out from the Privacy Commissioner with respect to meetings between people on either side of a privacy complaint.
Sounds like they think hooking up with the other party is cool.
I’ve got no problems with her meeting Fuller. But why evade TV3′s questions over whether she did?
so why did Bennett lie and evade when questioned?
And the Privacy Commission is wrong. It migth be ok for other parties to try to resolve things befroe a report but for a minister to try to get a complaint withdrawn days before a report is due – that’s not on.
Bennett’s career is taking on a distinctly Hindenberg quality
Relaxed, Disappointed, will the new word John learns be Concerned?
The Press 05/30.4.10 today:
“Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has admitted meeting with the single mother who complained to the Privacy Commissioner after the minister made public details of her personal finances.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3641290/Bennett-admits-meeting-woman
and so it begins.
anyone remember Richard Worth?
Until there is a shread of evidence for this, it’s nothing more than a conspiricy theory
Many of the comments on this thread sound like they are coming from conspiricy theorists.
It is more convincing that there is greater conspiracy to keep any real and full detail of the incident away from public scrutiny than there is conspiracy to expose the considerable failings that have been most foolishly self-inflicted.
Most stupid non-news story I’ve seen TV 3 present. Jesus christ what an absolute joke. The emails were between Natasha and a friend. Not Paula and Natasha as TV 3 presented last night. Honestly, an absolutely joke.
Well I hope everyone watched the news as the email were revealed
So it was all based on a facebook posting from Natasha Fuller and she admits making it up.
Colour me surprised, or maybe tickled.
After the hell that Bennett has put her through, the last thing that Fuller would do is lie in a way that’s going to put the spotlight back on her. Bennett on the other hand shows scant understanding of and even less regard for the limits of acceptable behaviour for a minister.
Lies
Bennett will owe Fuller compensation once the report comes out (and she better pay out of her own pocket) but Bennett isn’t offering compensation, she’s trying to prevent the report coming out at all.
You don’t understand the role of the Privacy Commission.
—-
I’m sorry but TV 3 presented the story as evidence there was a discussion between Bennett and Fuller. Most of us took that as emails between Bennett and Fuller. What we get instead seems to be banterish-like posts on facebook between two friends. TV 3 look stupid. Fuller unfortunately will look bad out of this and Eddie looks foolish for not understanding how the Privacy Commission works. And most of you also look stupid for being taken in by the TV 3 story. One would have thought you’d learn from the H-Fee disaster.
Actually if I go even further. What TV 3 did today is far worse than what you lot accused Paula Bennett of doing when she alledgedly broke Natasha Fuller’s privacy.
Did TV 3 seriously not talk to Natasha Fuller yesterday? What TV 3 did today set Natasha Fuller to look like a fool.
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
That was even more pathetic than I could have possibly imagined.
Fuller? Fuller shit more likely! Obviously a serial liar. Winz need to investigate her to see what other lies she’s been telling to get her benefit. I am never going to believe anything I see on TV3 again. What a pathetic source for a news item. Facebook pages!!???
That’s quite an unpleasant comment you’ve made there tsmith.
Yes, apologies Irish. I probably did go over the top a bit. To be fair to Fuller I think more of the blame is with TV3. Her facebook comments would have been private if TV3 hadn’t got involved. Now they have embarrassed her quite unnecessarily. That was some of the worst journalism I have ever seen. TV3 should be apologising to both her and Bennet. Honestly.
Fuller made some comments on Facebook. She didn’t lie to the public. It’s TV3′s fault for talking Facebook comments a fact.
looking to forward to the Eddie apologising for slandering Paula Bennett.
looks very sad when Labour put this lady forward to make a privacy complaint and then she lies on there behalf.
Even sadder when this blog site that claims total independence from Labour , blindly plays attack dog for them without a cursory checking of the facts.
[lprent: We are independent. Are you suggesting we aren't? Be careful with your answer.. ]
I’ve edited the post to reflect the new information. I blame TV3 for running on the strength of someone bullshitting with their friend on Facebook.
Fuller isn’t linked to Labour as far as I know, which is to say I’ve seen nothing in the media saying that. I certainly don’t take lines from Labour and I’m entitled to take media reports as fact – that was my fact checking, what else would you have suggested?
Ah, if only we could expect such actions from DPF…
Ohh dear:
“Now the solo parent who wrote them says money wasn’t talked about, and admits she made those details up.”
“She said she was “lying and joking’ and that even thought the discussions were quite detailed – this was just “part of her personality’.”
LINK:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Beneficiary-admits-fabricating-Bennett-meeting-details/tabid/419/articleID/153588/Default.aspx
Like I said, ohh dear.
In this wonderful time of the internet, linking to something is only a google, and a click or two away, but I guess those above me are too dumb to do this and cut n paste a single link…
http://www.3news.co.nz/Beneficiary-admits-fabricating-Bennett-meeting-details/tabid/419/articleID/153588/Default.aspx
Bloody stupid TV3 for not doing their fact checking.
On the other hand, the beneficiary bashing that’s going to result’s from this is going to produce a thousand facepalms, more so given the inability of those idiots to understand how much stress results from being slagged off by moronic talk-back radio bots who have literacy issues when it comes to reading about beneficiary entitlements.
Um did you not watch the bit with the Privacy Commission Eddie. Where in her statement she said:
The Privacy Commission said today:
* It commonly arranges these face-to-face meetings
* Settlements include an apology, an assurance an action will not recur, modest compensation or personal gestures, such as flowers or vouchers
* Settlements are kept confidential
Oh dear – so Paula Bennett ISN’T corrupt, and DIDN’T try to bribe Ms Fuller into silence. Like Mark above, I look forward to Eddie’s public apology.
[fuck off. I relied on the publicly available facts. I've changed my post in light of the new facts. I have nothing to apologise for because I did nothing wrong, TV3 did.]
[lprent: Correct. The post offered opinion on a politician based on what are now known to be rather spurious 'facts' from a news organization. Isn't free speech about politicians wonderful? ]
That’s a lame excuse. You defamed Paula Bennett based on information from TV3. Sure, they are the source of the incorrect information, but YOU are the one who said
I notice that you’ve now removed the “corrupt” allegation – that’s good. But you can’t escape the fact that YOU wrote the post, not TV3.
I got burned a couple of months ago with something I posted at Keeping Stock. It took a retraction, an apology, and a couple of conversations with a party (whom I had inadvertantly linked to something that didn’t concern them) to put things right again; it was a salutory lesson.
More fools though the supposed “journalists” at 3News who got taken in!
I don’t know the incident on your blog you’re referring to because, like everyone else, I don’t read it.
Perhaps you should stick to defaming politicians as you did in 2007/8. They have a lot fewer defenses
We know the meeting took place . Ms Bennett refused to admit it yesterday.
Bad look no 1.
We know that the Privacy Commissioner encouraged the meeting despite the fact that one of the parties to the dispute is a cabinet minister.
Bad look no2.
It is clear that the motivation of the minister was to get the complainant to withdraw her complaint so that the Commissioner’s findings would never be made public. We have to assume that it was with the Commissioner’s blessing.
Bad look No 3.
Labour has fore-shadowed it will be asking questions in the House next week.
And so they damm well should!
Anne, I think the best advice to Labour is to drop this very quietly and walk away. It will only look worse for them if they keep pushing it.
I really hope they do!!!!!
I’ve even prepared a knee-deep hole for them, have a shovel on standby, and have hidden the ladder.
So, thats a win chalked up for the dark side today?
the media?
Christ. If there aren’t sackings at TV3 after this, then they deserve to have no one watching their “news”.
And no, there’s nothing wrong with Bennett meeting a complainant to try to reach a settlement with which both parties are happy. Standard practice for Tribunals and that level of thing for years, and even the higher courts are heavying parties into mediation more frequently as a tactic to try and unclog the courts.
Here in WA I have to put in “certificates of conferral” to attest that I’ve tried to reach agreement with the other side even when there’s clearly no hope of doing so.
Sad that we live in an era where idiots are responsible for providing our news.
Sadder still that we live in an era where, based on past performance, it seems entirely credible that a Minister of the Crown would behave in such a way.
Regarding the meeting, it is still different when it’s a minister. They have extraordinary authority and power, they shouldn’t attempt to make complaints go away.
You’re right, Marty, but as tsmithfield alerted us to earlier the Privacy Commissioner seems to have encouraged the process (and from the days when she was in the Clerk’s Office, if Marie Shroff “encourages” you to do something, I seem to recall you are overcome by a pretty strong urge to do it. Clare Curran wishes she had the same powers).
Much as I hate to be defending Bennett, if the Commission urged consultation and it came out that the Minister had refused, then she’d be up for just as much bad publicity, no?
Perhaps there’s a job for Gordon Brown at TV3 after he’s booted out next month, he’d fit in perfectly.
If Labour are going to ask questions. It has to be entirely centered around the privacy matter and what Paula has heard back from the privacy commissioner etc. To use the TV 3 story to ask questions would in my opinion be an utter mistake.
Agree with you gingercrush. I am sure that is Labour’s intention to centre the questions around the
privacy matter…
It is to be hoped that Natasha Fuller and her friend have learnt a big lesson here. You don’t bullshit around with talk of ‘money’ when it never happened. But it doesn’t alter the fact that Paula Bennett tried to obscure the truth about the meeting last night, and I feel distinctly uneasy about the apparent collaboration between her and Marie Shroff over the attempt to shut the complaint down. Don’t care if it is normal process elsewhere. When a senior cabinet minister and politics are involved… it’s a very, very bad look!
Be assured ts… your advice would be among the last that Labour would heed.
Ha ha ha…when will you guys ever learn.
I have not bothered to scroll back up through all the left wing knuckle dragger’s comments but is it safe to assume that you guys have offered Ms Bennett a full apology?