Corrupt

Written By: - Date published: 9:33 pm, April 29th, 2010 - 148 comments
Categories: benefits, welfare - Tags: ,

After attacking solo mothers Jennifer Johnston and Natasha Fuller by releasing their private financial details back in July last year Paula Bennett spoke with Johnston and, somewhat oddly, received an apology form her. At the time I thought the sudden turnaround was a bit fishy.

Now TV3 has evidence that Bennett has met with Fuller more recently and may have offered her cash to withdraw her complaint to the privacy commissioner. It’s a bit confused but it looks like the evidence has come from Fuller who has had to go to ground after Bennett set the bene-bashing dogs on her.

If it is proven that Bennett has tried to bully or buy Fuller’s silence she should be sacked for corruption. It’s that simple.

Of course this last minute desperate buy-off attempt means it’s likely the privacy commissioner is close to ruling and that ruling is not likely to be good for Bennett so we may see the back of this unpleasant Muldoonist bully yet.

148 comments on “Corrupt ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bobo 1
    29 April 2010 at 9:40 pm

    Will she still be a cabinet minister by the weekend? We all know how low Keys standards are with sacking ministers that is…. spin dr’s will be up late tonight…

  2. the sprout 2
    29 April 2010 at 9:42 pm

    Hmm, she should look worried.
    At last, the first evidence of perceptiveness from the Puppet.

  4. Jim Nald 4
    29 April 2010 at 9:50 pm

    When I grow up, I wanna be like her

    • the sprout 4.1
      29 April 2010 at 10:03 pm

      already too late Jim, you appear to be literate and you can’t unlearn that without significant brain damage.

      • Jim Nald 4.1.1
        29 April 2010 at 10:10 pm

        aaawww

        i wanna be ambitious!
        ambitiously bullying
        i wanna be fresh!
        freshly corrupt
        i wanna be bold!
        boldly buying off those dang problems
        i wanna have standards!
        standards so high that i can crawl under without a spine
        i wanna be ass pee rational!
        see! i’m getting there

        captcha: appreciated
        (amazing crystal ball)

  5. Quoth the Raven 5
    29 April 2010 at 10:07 pm

    I glanced at the front page here for a moment and I thought I saw Gaddafi, but I looked again and realised it was Bennett.I think it’s just the glasses that got me. Take a look.

  6. toad 6
    29 April 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Amazing how the Muldoon analogies to the current government are starting to proliferate.

    Frog just made one here too.

  7. JAS 7
    29 April 2010 at 10:16 pm

    Looks like fortunes (captcha) could be changing for Ms Bennett.

  8. Tim Edgar 8
    29 April 2010 at 10:24 pm

    When are the nats and their cronies going to learn you cant push the ordinary NZer around. I bet that plenty of pressure ,has been put on the poor woman, to let the beast from out west, of the hook.

    Its not just her that’s corrupt either. Hide and his mob are steering the path of Auckland down an all too familiar track.

    Its time to say enough is enough!

    • Dirk D 8.1
      30 April 2010 at 11:12 am

      What a load of bollix!

      You labour people always attack the individual and not the issue. Wasnt it Natasha Fuller who was rorting the system? Getting plenty of cash for popping out kids and where pray tell is the father? No amount of scrutiny there huh, not to mention the fact she was once a labour party ‘cronie’ as you put it anyway.

      Paula Bennett has done superbly in the social development role and i reckon she will have an increased majority next year to boot.

      As for your ‘beast’ comment. Sick, plain old sick.

      [lprent: No Fuller was not ‘rorting’ the system. She was using it exactly as was intended. At least until Bennett cut the facilities that were designed to get people off the DPB and into work when their kid-raising was done.

      The rest of your comment shows the same level of idiocy and misinformation. Perhaps you should use your brain and think before writing rather than looking like another idiot troll. ]

      • Dirk D 8.1.1
        30 April 2010 at 12:34 pm

        According to my mate David, you people are stiring up trouble over lies anyway.

        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/04/no_money.html#comments

        Is that all you pathetic labour people have these days, editorial beat-ups from you mates in the left wing msm.

        God im sick of the wingers, the faster we cut govt spending the faster the economy will grow and then maybe the poor old taxpayer can get some relief.

        Long live a strong National Government and its revered leader, John ‘da man with da plan’ Key

        [lprent: Writes like a mindless troll with delusions of fawning minionhood (a bit like Baldrick from Blackadder). Obviously has never developed the skills required for independent thought. ]

        • Bright Red 8.1.1.1
          30 April 2010 at 1:01 pm

          “God im sick of the wingers”

          prefer props?

          Actually, this guy reads like parody. It’s quite hard to tell.

          There was some organisation, can’t remember which, that got so extreme in its doctrine that any new applicant would invariably be rejected: either they were not doctrinely correct or they were as extreme or more so and the existing members thought they were taking the piss.

          • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.1.1
            30 April 2010 at 1:05 pm

            “Actually, this guy reads like parody”

            Agreed.

            This…

            “fact she was once a labour party ‘cronie’ as you put it ”

            is just too too special.

            • Dirk D 8.1.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2010 at 1:57 pm

              If you want to play the man then have at it. At least i dont debase myself by choosing a name that is associated with sin.

              I bet you were one of those folks who made coin off the inside knowledge of the Storm salary cap breach.

              If i was in power i would place a new excise tax on gambling, just so you were put out of business.

              As for bright red (crayon – yeah you seem like a child), yes i am a fan of forward play. I feel too much razzle dazzle football is played these days. Just look at the Bulls, Stormers and Reds, all built upon a sound forward pack.

              By the by, none of you have apologised to Paula yet for your slanderous comments. We are waiting.

              [lprent: Sounds like troll, has pretensions to be Baldrick, and has no idea of the law on slander with respect to politicians. Normally I’d start warning or banning him about now (but it doesn’t look like he has read my notes yet). But I haven’t seen anyone who has been so pathetically amusing for a while. Lets play with the wee troll for a while. I wonder if it can be trained out of the bad habits it has picked up at other blogs, like not using their brain, and not listening… ]

            • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.1.1.2
              30 April 2010 at 10:01 pm

              At least i dont debase myself by choosing a name that is associated with sin.

              Ignorant fuck. For the record, I’m not a gambler, not that that’s a sin. Neither is porn diggler, but aping the seventies possibly is.

              • Olwyn …
                30 April 2010 at 10:24 pm

                You have an excellent and enviable name – it is the name next door to the Euthyphro problem.

          • NickS 8.1.1.1.2
            30 April 2010 at 5:21 pm

            Actually, this guy reads like parody. It’s quite hard to tell.

            Allow me to introduce to Poe’s Law then:

            Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.

            Applies quite nicely to political satire/parodies as well.

      • the sprout 8.1.2
        30 April 2010 at 4:59 pm

        You labour people

        😆 what a twat

        • Jim Nald 8.1.2.1
          30 April 2010 at 5:15 pm

          @ the sprout
          I’ve been biting my tongue so far but feel now I should disabuse that DD dork of his biased preconceived notion. Actually, my family are National Party voters; I voted National at the recent election – with every passing day and week, we’ve all felt more and more let down by them. I feel we should no longer be quiet but must speak out more.
          The Govt can try to dodge the foolish Paula Bennett-Johnston/Fuller incident any which way they like but we are of the opinion that Paula has been wrong and she has behaved disgracefully.

          Oh and by the way, if it ever comes down to it, not a cent of taxpayers’ money should be used to bail her out of this by trying to buy off fairness and justice.

  9. Lizzy 9
    29 April 2010 at 10:24 pm

    It was always wrong to give her the big chair for being young, brown 1/2 pie and common (I see you chewing gum in the house). Nikki was youth Spokesperson in opposition, Nikki has the skills and should not have been traded in for the younger gruntier model in the first place. Give is substance over tacky style anyday. Also darn stupid how Chester was sidelined from Police so the Collie could have it. Bad bad decisions.

  10. John Dalley 10
    29 April 2010 at 10:40 pm

    Please, please, please, someone have a tape of the alleged bribery.
    Apparently Privacy Commissioners report is due out tomorrow?

    • Jim Nald 10.1
      29 April 2010 at 10:45 pm

      oh puhleaze

      the lady protesteth “Absolutely not”

      and protesteth “Not in any form”

      and protesteth “not in any type of conversation”

      and protesteth “not face to face”

      and protesteth “not in writing”

  11. John Dalley 11
    29 April 2010 at 10:45 pm

    Listening to the Bennett interview, it makes me wonder that if Bennett had nothing to fear, why meet with Johnston. Suspicious don’t you think.

  12. well, well, well (3 holes in the ground) 12
    29 April 2010 at 10:49 pm

    nat spin:

    Aaawww look – Paula just offered to pay for her studies afterall – isn’t she lovely. This ‘bribery’ notion is just a big ol misunderstanding. And Natasha Fuller being ever-so-grateful, well of course she would withdraw her complaint.

    captcha: embarrassed

  13. Craig Glen Eden 13
    29 April 2010 at 10:57 pm

    I have said it from the moment she won her seat, she is a stupid bully and I stand by it. I don’t care what party they belong to people like Bennett don’t deserve to be in Parliament.
    If theirs evidence JD you can be sure it will be held back so Bennett pulls the rope nice and tight.

    • HitchensFan 13.1
      30 April 2010 at 10:53 am

      I have always said it too, Craig Glen Eden. Can’t wait to see the back of her.

      THE DREAM IS OVER, PAULA

  14. Luke.xensen 14
    29 April 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Her look on the last couple of seconds of the Campbell live interview was golden.
    Was when the camera turned away a little, and Bennett though it had stopped and her smile rapidly dissapeared and became an angry frown.
    Maybe we need a new facebook group to complement the ‘Clare Glare’.

  15. MS 15
    29 April 2010 at 11:19 pm

    captcha says it best: USELESS

  16. Akldnut 16
    29 April 2010 at 11:24 pm

    WTF Bennett claims that it’s ok to stay silent while working through a process that’s unresolved yet she opened her big fat mouth when it came to revealing private information about Jennifer Johnston and Natasha Fuller.

    If she did the same now it would be all over. Hypocrite!!! Big fat unconvincing hypocrite!!!

  17. felix 17
    29 April 2010 at 11:40 pm

    The mouth says “no” but the nodding says “yes”.

    And there’s sharp intake of breath she learned from John Key at the end – trying to suck the lies back in.

    Byebye Paula. It’s been real.

  18. ianmac 18
    29 April 2010 at 11:43 pm

    Hope you don’t mind but published this on the wrong post.
    John Key said today that he had no problem with Paula Bennett’s attempt to bribe Natasha Fuller yesterday. He thought it was careless of her to get caught but her biggest mistake actually was in not offering a big enough sum, actually and he would be quite willing to chip in a few bucks to help out. When asked if this was a case was serious enough for the Minister to step down, he thought actually that it was a minor matter actually and that he was quite relaxed about it all actually.
    “Actually,’ said Minister Bennett. “I really think that you people should actually respect my privacy. Privacy is every person’s right and it would be cruel, unjust, and and unfair to actually betray that trust, actually..’
    (Just a bit of satire actually. 🙂 )

    • Jim Nald 18.1
      29 April 2010 at 11:53 pm

      Do you think they would both be ambitious with the truth?

      captcha: suspects
      (!!!!!!!!)

  19. Fisiani 19
    29 April 2010 at 11:50 pm

    best comedy blog in town

    • the sprout 19.1
      30 April 2010 at 7:38 am

      you won’t be laughing by the end of today 😆

      • Tigger 19.1.1
        30 April 2010 at 8:28 am

        Yep, watching someone crap themselves silly on national TV is a riot! Just seeing the jittering tension in her mouth as she spews out that stream of bewildering nonsense was better than anything in the Comedy Fest!

    • Maynard J 19.2
      30 April 2010 at 8:31 am

      But it was surgical corruption fisiani! Haven’t you seen modern, surgical corruption techniques in action?

      If people were polled about surgical corruption they’d surely support it.

  20. sukie Damson 20
    30 April 2010 at 12:00 am

    Really, is there any need for this report tomorrow? One minute into this John Campbell interview Paula explains away her actions with her usual watertight clarity and eloquence.

    JC” .. which [parts of the Privacy Act/Cabinet Manual] allow you to release this information ?”

    PB “its’ um, its a… theres definitely a piece in it that addresses this very thing and it went back from years ago”

  21. JAS 21
    30 April 2010 at 12:19 am

    LOL @ captcha “process” Paula’s favourite word of the day!

    Seriously, if this is in fact true, I can see no other option but her standing down.

    What would that do to her much touted scholarship?

  22. Jum 22
    30 April 2010 at 12:33 am

    If Bennett goes we know Collins will be waiting in the wings. Now she’s effectively silenced prisoners’ voices, she’ll be looking to ‘shut up’ the beneficiaries.

  23. Jim Nald 23
    30 April 2010 at 12:35 am

    Stand down or not either way, do you think NZ can keep up the top spot for Transparency International’s 2010 rating?

    I hope we’re not closing the gap with Somalia (number 180):
    http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table

  24. OliverI 24
    30 April 2010 at 3:01 am

    Just watched the video, by proof do you mean – nothing?

  25. tsmithfield 25
    30 April 2010 at 5:47 am

    She has made a public denial. Her biggest worry is if evidence does actually come out that she offered money then telling lies in public would be a mandatory sacking. To be honest, nodding yes while saying no never looks very good though.

    However, unless there is some objective evidence of an offer being made it is hard to see how she can be proved to have lied or offered money.

    If she went through the right channels though, it wouldn’t even necessarily be a bribe or corruption if she had offered to settle out of her own money (public money obviously would be corruption):

    Here is a document that sets out the scope of the privacy act and the commissioner in this respect.

    Quoting from this document:

    The characteristics of the Privacy Commissioner’s involvement would be a specialist knowledge of the act and how other complaints under it have turned out, an inquisitorial (as opposed to adversarial) inquiry conducted in private, and a conscious search for a basis on which the matter might be settled by agreement.

    Therefore, it seems that one of the roles of the commission is to work with the parties to achieve a settlement. Thus, if this was the process that had been invoked, Bennett could have simply said,
    “we are discussing the matter within the scope of the privacy act and that is the only comment I am willing to make”.

    But now she has specifically denied offering money, it becomes a matter of what evidence there is to support the allegation. It may well be that an offer was never specifically made but that the wording of the conversation left the door open to the possibility.

    • tsmithfield 25.1
      30 April 2010 at 5:59 am

      Additional to my comment above, a discussion might have ensued as follows:

      Bennett: “What would it take to make this go away”
      Johnston: “$100,000”
      Bennett: “I will take that under consideration”.

      In the wording of this scenario it would be possible to deny making a specific offer for money, as the suggestion of money to settle the matter would have come from the complainant, although the possibility of money was certainly implied. This might be why Bennett was confident enough to issue a denial while looking quite guilty about doing so.

      • The Voice of Reason 25.1.1
        30 April 2010 at 7:01 am

        I’m kinda with you on this TS. I suspect Bennett has had a conversation along the lines you outline and is hoping like hell that doing so doesn’t constitute offering a bribe at worst or compromising her Ministerial position at best.

        However, I would have thought merely raising it personally with the victim should be enough in itself to end her career. The usual go in these situations is to use an intermediary to negotiate (think John Key’s work as Brash’s bag man with the Brethren). National’s spinners are working hard overnight to squash the story (“The minister has respected this process and the people in this process throughout. She has negotiated her way through the process in good faith.”), but I don’t think it’s going to go away.

        Is this the most corrupt Government NZ’s ever had or is it just the most incompetent?

        • tsmithfield 25.1.1.1
          30 April 2010 at 7:18 am

          Its interesting that there is a specific process the privacy commissioner can guide to bring about a settlement. It appears from what Bennett was saying that they were both acting within that process. So, I think it is quite possible to reach a settlement within that process without any hint of corruption.

          The questions from the interviewer were very specific about whether Bennett had made an offer. In that context she may have been quite entitled to disclose what she didn’t do as that is not breaching the privacy of the discussions.

          If, on the other hand, the interviewer had been a bit broader and asked whether there had been any discussions about a financial settlement then I suspect Bennett would have simply answered as she had through the rest of the interview about respecting the privacy of the process.

          How do you think Johnston comes out of this? If these are discussions that are within the privacy commission framework, then surely there can be nothing more private. Was Johnston disclosing information therefore treating the Privacy Commission with contempt? She might have scored an own goal with this one.

          • The Voice of Reason 25.1.1.1.1
            30 April 2010 at 7:26 am

            Excellent last para, TS. I think we really should switch the focus to the victim. That’s this Government in a nutshell, eh?

            • tsmithfield 25.1.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2010 at 7:37 am

              Just being objective about this.

              It might be that the PC was going to rule in Johnston’s favour, but now might consider that there has beeen a breach in the other direction and so the ledger has been squared off.

              • Marty G …
                30 April 2010 at 8:30 am

                attacking the victim is was you scumbags do every time.

                you don’t even know her name but you have no shame in attacking her.

          • In The Know 25.1.1.1.2
            30 April 2010 at 8:08 am

            It is about Fuller, not Johnson.

  26. mickysavage 26
    30 April 2010 at 7:07 am

    There is nothing in the Herald today about this but they do mention Bennett in the House yesterday responding about the bullying of a 78 woman by WINZ.

    AMAZING.

  27. mach1 27
    30 April 2010 at 7:13 am

    Something here Micky.

  28. mach1 28
    30 April 2010 at 7:17 am

    Nice one aunty Tari.

    captcha: isolate

  29. Fijoa muncher 29
    30 April 2010 at 7:30 am

    Clearly someone here is lying. Not so sure the evidence (??) points to Paula Bennett tho.

    TV3 certainly didn’t seem to have any evidence to that effect.

    I think Paula Bennett looked to be genuinely trying to do the right thing in a tricky legal situation while an investingation is still going – surely she would have been in more trouble if she’d blurted out what went on?

    • mickysavage 29.1
      30 April 2010 at 7:40 am

      They do. They have emails and Paula asked to see them. She is obviously worried. What is the bet she has been using a private account to communicate and is worried that these emails may now be in TV3’s hands?

    • Marty G 29.2
      30 April 2010 at 8:09 am

      The right thing for a minister to do when an official information is ongoing into her behaviour is to not interfere with that investigation or attempt to bribe the complainant into dropping the complaint so the investigation will disappear.

  30. JAS 30
    30 April 2010 at 7:31 am

    So Key just confirmed the meeting did take place, (on breakfast) and that an agreement has been reached, but denies money being offered.

    He thinks the meeting appropriate – unbelievable.

    • tsmithfield 30.1
      30 April 2010 at 7:39 am

      Read my posts above. There is a privacy commission process specifically for this purpose. Nothing untoward about resolving issues within that process.

      You’re probably better to focus on whether Bennett lied about offering money.

      • Marty G 30.1.1
        30 April 2010 at 8:06 am

        Bennett is trying to end the privacy commissioner process before the report comes out. If you had watched the articles you would have seen that Fuller has been asked to withdraw her complaint. If she does that, no report.

      • Pascal's bookie 30.1.2
        30 April 2010 at 8:18 am

        Nothing untoward about resolving issues within that process.

        snort.

        Apart from the fact that this particular case isn’t about, for example, an individuals details being misused by a telemarketer.

        This case is and always has been about more than just the individual. It’s a minister of the crown we are talking about.

        If the Minister misused information for political purposes then that is a serious issue irrespective of any settlement. If there was a need for a settlement, then that certainly implies she was out of order.

        • tsmithfield 30.1.2.1
          30 April 2010 at 8:59 am

          Marty, PB, read my first post. The commissioners role is to bring about a settlement. Therefore, the terminating of the decision process is obviously implied if an agreement is reached beforehand. So I don’t see any problem here. Neither do I see it as anything untoward to seek a settlement if it is within Privacy Commission processes.

          Two questions for you:

          1. Should negotiations within the framework of the PC remain private unless there is agreement from both sides to make the information known?
          2. Would you both be bleating if Bennett had released information about what was going on in that process without Johnston’s consent?
          3. If so, is Bennett actually a victim on this occasion as it appears Johnston has released information without her consent? Remember, you can’t have it both ways.

          • Marty G 30.1.2.1.1
            30 April 2010 at 9:07 am

            A minister should not interfere in an investigation into her actions. Let alone try to make that investigation go away with money.

            The actions of a minister are always legitimate public knowledge. The private information of a private citizen is not.

            And you don’t even now the name of the complaint yet it doesn’t stop you attacking her. It’s disgraceful.

            • tsmithfield 30.1.2.1.1.1
              30 April 2010 at 9:27 am

              Marty, “And you don’t even now the name of the complaint yet it doesn’t stop you attacking her. It’s disgraceful.”

              Fair point. Should have picked the right name out of the article.

              Marty “A minister should not interfere in an investigation into her actions. Let alone try to make that investigation go away with money.”

              Except this is all part of due process.

              Let me remind you again:

              The characteristics of the Privacy Commissioner’s involvement would be a specialist knowledge of the act and how other complaints under it have turned out, an inquisitorial (as opposed to adversarial) inquiry conducted in private, and a conscious search for a basis on which the matter might be settled by agreement.

              .

              So, how about actually answering the questions I asked

          • Pascal's bookie 30.1.2.1.2
            30 April 2010 at 9:25 am

            1) Not necessarily.

            2) As above

            3) See 1,2.

            In any case:

            This case is and always has been about more than just the individual. It’s a minister of the crown we are talking about.

            If the Minister misused information for political purposes then that is a serious issue irrespective of any settlement. If there was a need for a settlement, then that certainly implies she was out of order.

            • Pascal's bookie 30.1.2.1.2.1
              30 April 2010 at 9:44 am

              And your quoted document just shows how desperate you are.

              It’s hardly an authoritative description of PC ‘process management’

              It’s a 13 year old discussion paper. I mean really tarquin. Desperate much?

              • tsmithfield …
                30 April 2010 at 10:04 am

                Since you are having a wee cry about it, is this more to your liking? Its from the FAQ section of the Privacy Commissioner Website :

                As long as the complaint involves a Privacy Act matter, the Commissioner will often try to settle the complaint by conciliation and mediation. Many privacy complaints can be solved without a formal investigation.

                And:

                No. The Privacy Commissioner cannot fine or prosecute anyone. Instead, the Privacy Act aims to settle privacy disputes, often after investigation, and aims to educate people on how to comply with the Act.

                So exactly how has anything Bennett has done fallen outside this process?

              • Pascal's bookie …
                30 April 2010 at 10:11 am

                What you are alleging is that Bennett interfered with the process. However, I think the evidence is she participated in a specified process. There is a big difference.

                Where do I allege that?

                What I am saying is that:

                This case is and always has been about more than just the individual. It’s a minister of the crown we are talking about.

                If the Minister misused information for political purposes then that is a serious issue irrespective of any settlement. If there was a need for a settlement, then that certainly implies she was out of order.

                What you seem to be saying, but please correct me if I’m wrong, is that there is a due process for Ministers to follow if they wish to misuse information for political purposes, and that Bennet has behaved quite properly in her role as Minister of the Crown.

              • tsmithfield …
                30 April 2010 at 10:15 am

                PB”If there was a need for a settlement, then that certainly implies she was out of order.”

                No it doesn’t. Settlements are often reached when it is unclear what the outcome will be. Bennett might have thought she had a 90% chance of being found right. But she may have wanted to hedge against the 10% possibility of being found wrong.

                The fact that Key has said there was no financial settlement involved suggests that this may well be the case. If it was the other way around, I would suggest that there would be considerable sums of money changing hands.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                30 April 2010 at 10:15 am

                This particular instance is about whether or not a Minister has misused information for political purposes.

                Whether or not, as a matter of fact the Minister breached the privacy act. Any settlement aimed at preventing the facts of the matter becoming public would seem to be problematic when working out whther she is fit to be a Minister.

                Your mileage obviously varies.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                30 April 2010 at 10:22 am

                “Bennett might have thought she had a 90% chance of being found right. But she may have wanted to hedge against the 10% possibility of being found wrong.”

                Or it could have been 50/50, 60/40, whatever.

                What level would you be comforatble with for a Minister of the Crown breaching the privacy act for political purposes?

                And while you are answering, another. Is there any evidence that this was part of any Privacy Commission process?

              • tsmithfield …
                30 April 2010 at 12:04 pm

                The point I was making is that a settlement is not the same as an admission of guilt, so I don’t think there are any conclusions can be drawn in that respect.

                So far as being part of the Privacy Commission process goes, this is what Bennett says numerous times in her interview that you can access from one of the early links above.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                30 April 2010 at 12:27 pm

                that’s cool, I agree there is room for some small amount of doubt. Though I think on ballance of probabilities it is not at all unreasonable to infer guilt.

                What level of doubt are you comfortable with for a Minister of the Crown breaching the privacy act for political purposes?

            • tsmithfield 30.1.2.1.2.2
              30 April 2010 at 9:49 am

              Perhaps you would like to explain your answers to my questions.

              What you are alleging is that Bennett interfered with the process. However, I think the evidence is she participated in a specified process. There is a big difference.

              Can you provide any evidence that Bennett has done any more than participate in a legitmate process?

              • Bright Red …
                30 April 2010 at 10:19 am

                My 2 cents.

                a minister should not be meeting with someone who has taken an official complaint against her. I don’t care if that’s something the privacy commissioner might recommend in other circumstances – with a minister things are different.

                How can meeting with Fuller and offering her money just before the last opportunity to make the report go away be anything other than an attempt to suppress that report and an admission of wrongdoing?

                Are you denying that by offering her money Bennett is implicitly admitting that she was wrong to release Fuller’s private information, ts?

              • tsmithfield …
                30 April 2010 at 11:00 am

                BR,

                Firstly, it is denied that money was ever offered. Not the same as “discussed”. Bennett was specifically asked if she had offered money.
                Secondly, we don’t know the context of any meeting that took place. Perhaps Bennett was invited to go. Perhaps lawyers from both sides were present.
                Thirdly, reaching a settlement is not the same as an admission of guilt.

              • Bright Red …
                30 April 2010 at 12:57 pm

                I love how you make up details that suit you, ts. It’s like being read a fairytale.

              • tsmithfield …
                30 April 2010 at 1:05 pm

                So, which of those do you think are a fairytale and why, BR? Don’t be shy now.

  31. the sprout 31
    30 April 2010 at 7:43 am

    a classic tell how she nods every time she attempts a denial!
    then shakes her head when saying how she ‘respects’ her victim!
    awesome incompetence.

  32. vto 32
    30 April 2010 at 7:59 am

    What about the Privacy Act and the Police recruitment ads?????

    “get better work stories..”

    • Craig Glen Eden 32.1
      30 April 2010 at 9:08 am

      Note to Bennett, Prime Ministers office is distancing it self very quickly from you oh shit!

  33. Joe Bloggs 33
    30 April 2010 at 8:46 am

    There is not a single shred of “evidence” presented in the TV3 piece. There are only allegations and questions…

    Nor is there any denial from Bennett that she met privately with Fuller – just a straight “neither confirm nor deny”.

    What “evidence”, Bill? Or is that another UMRism?

    • Pascal's bookie 33.1
      30 April 2010 at 9:07 am

      Here you go.

      • Joe Bloggs 33.1.1
        30 April 2010 at 11:05 am

        no evidence there either – just more allegations.

        Show me the evidence.

      • tsmithfield 33.1.2
        30 April 2010 at 11:06 am

        “A monetary settlement was discussed and the idea of Fuller dropping her complaint was floated.”

        Watch the interview. Bennett was clearly asked if she had OFFERED a financial settlement. That is clearly different to what is stated in the article above.

  34. Craig Glen Eden 34
    30 April 2010 at 9:44 am

    JB watch the article again and the links TV3 are saying they have emails, oh shit yeah! Thats why Bennett’s position of not confirming or denying is stupid. Bennett is driven by self interest not through any privacy principle.

    So lets draw the dots, reports due out which does not show Bennett in a good light, Nats decide lets try and shut it down by reaching an agreement with complainant. If it works great, if it dosnt well we did nothing wrong because the aim of the authorities role is to get resolution. HMMM.

    Key alleges on (Morning Breakfast) he new nothing about Bennett’s contact with complainant until Bennett told him on Wednesday night????? Bennett wont talk further until she has seen the emails which TV three has. So Bennett has been in touch JB unless Key is lying about his phone call from Bennett. Watch the big sigh from Bennett at the end of the TV 3 clip JB, OH shit its all turning to custard, enjoy your weekend.

    • Joe Bloggs 34.1
      30 April 2010 at 11:23 am

      TV3 are saying they have emails

      didn’t realise Nicky Hager was working at TV3 these days…

  35. ianmac 35
    30 April 2010 at 10:31 am

    It is just possible that there is not really an issue here. The original Bennett release of info against Jennifer and Natasha was to be despised.
    But since the complaint lies with the Privacy Commission whos job it is to attempt to resolve a complaint rather than prosecute, then maybe this will legitamately die as an issue. (Which pisses me off excessively!) It is true that Bennett made the visit. She may have been criticised if she didn’t!??
    However the Perception is what really matters but apart from TV3 the story is just not out there in the public forum. It might be a near miss. Bugger!

  36. WillieMaley 36
    30 April 2010 at 10:58 am

    Has TV3s political editor commented on this?

  37. big bruv 37
    30 April 2010 at 11:00 am

    Hmmm, lets see, who will the public get behind.

    A DPB bludger with a left wing political agenda or a very popular minister….?

    This is another battle that you fools do not want to start, the public (save the 29% who are Labour cheer leaders) will be right behind Bennetts efforts to expose people like Fuller, the only mistake Bennett made was offering an apology.

    • Maynard J 37.1
      30 April 2010 at 11:22 am

      A minister who cocks up and then, perhaps, offers your money to pay for it. Your taxes. Yet you suck it up like a little B**ch. You’re going pretty cheap aren’t you?

    • HitchensFan 37.2
      30 April 2010 at 11:31 am

      “A popular Minister”??????

      LOL! Who are you kidding?? I have heard nothing but contempt for her from across the political spectrum!

    • Akldnut 37.3
      30 April 2010 at 12:41 pm

      BB ………..a very popular minister .?

      Which distorted, delusional universe do you live in.

      It’s obvious she’s in save arse mode and her actions are to close down the enquiry.
      which of the last govt could have done that with rightwing wingnuts having a major breakdown because of it.

      Captcha – acceptable (not in my lifetime)

      • uke 37.3.1
        30 April 2010 at 1:49 pm

        “expose people like Fuller”

        You mean who wanted the same hand-up benefit that Bennett herself took advantage of (then slashed)?

  38. tc 38
    30 April 2010 at 11:22 am

    Yeah BB their guru Muldoon never would of so why should they…..hear that….it’s the sound of the arrogant/undemocratic/bullying facade cracking…..it’s 2010 not 1970 but the nat playbook remains unchanged.

    • big bruv 38.1
      30 April 2010 at 11:29 am

      Ha ha, it seems you have a selective memory when it comes to politicians arrogance.

      If you ask me Bennett is bending over backwards to appease this bludger, an arrogant stance would have been to tell her to piss off (pity she did not do that).

      Can I assume you were just as angry with the supreme arrogance shown by Clark and Cullen?, or the undemocratic passing of some bills that the Labour party never campaigned on?, or the rampant corruption of the Clark government…..

      • Bored 38.1.1
        30 April 2010 at 11:37 am

        I dont have a clue whether Bennett is corrupt, or whether she is up against people with an agenda. What is obvious from this and other events is that Bennett is terminally stupid, to the extent that she is totally out of her depth. She has proven that she does not have the ability to fulfil her role and responsibility to the electorate as a minister. This trait is not unique to National, what does stand out is that Key unlike Clark tolerates incompetence.

  39. Bored 39
    30 April 2010 at 11:39 am

    PS BB what the f**k do you mean by “the rampant corruption of the Clark government ..”? Give us some clear examples

    • tsmithfield 39.1
      30 April 2010 at 12:06 pm

      You are joking, right?

      Hint: Jail

      • Bored 39.1.1
        30 April 2010 at 12:14 pm

        TS you really are a fuckwit. Field got dealt to by labour aswell as the Courts.

        • tsmithfield 39.1.1.1
          30 April 2010 at 12:23 pm

          So, Bored, was Field behaving corruptly while within the Labour Government?

          Doesn’t really matter what Labour did after the event (although they did put up an impotent enquiry designed not to get any answers in the first instance).

          The point is that he was behaving corruptly while in the Labour Government. Given that he was part of that government, the Labour government had a degree of corruption within it. I don’t see how you can walk away from that absolutely clear fact.

          • Maynard J 39.1.1.1.1
            30 April 2010 at 12:42 pm

            “The rampant corruption”

            becomes

            “a degree of corruption”

            and conceeded to be a weak one at that, one which was dealt with.

            Don’t play all your cards at once, tsf 😉

            • tsmithfield 39.1.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2010 at 1:01 pm

              No I wouldn’t dream of playing all my cards at once Maynard.

              Remember this guy, Maynard. Still haven’t seen an adequate explanation from Labour as to why Jones, Cunliffe et al. gave this guy citizenship when Internal Affairs strongly recommended against it for very good reasons. Turns out he was donating truckloads to Labour at the time too…hmmmm.

              • Maynard J …
                30 April 2010 at 2:25 pm

                Phew, before the court case with this one…showing your hand too early? I guess we’ll have to see what happens with PB though eh, pot n kettle & all…

            • tsmithfield 39.1.1.1.1.2
              30 April 2010 at 3:04 pm

              The fact that it is now before the courts is not really the issue.

              The issue is that Labour politicians granted this guy citizenship when he had a clearly dodgy background to say the least, and against the strong advice of Internal Affairs. And, coincidently the guy was donating who knows how much money to Labour at the time.

              • Maynard J …
                30 April 2010 at 4:11 pm

                “donating who knows how much money to Labour at the time”

                Surely the electoral commission?

                But, you know, glad being before the couts isn’t an issus. It wouldn’t be good if Labour started making offers to try and make it “go away” before it went to court, or some form of report about it came out…that sort of thing.

            • insider 39.1.1.1.1.3
              30 April 2010 at 3:37 pm

              David B-P interfering in employment issues in his ministry…?

              That said Clark dealt with it when his head was presented on a platter.

              • Herodotus …
                30 April 2010 at 4:10 pm

                Corruption – Wiki
                Political corruption: the abuse of public power, office, or resources by government officials or employees for personal gain, e.g. by extortion, soliciting or offering bribes.[2]
                Perhaps based on this Trevor M attack in parliament of M.Senchel and anyone else who hides behind Parliament priviledge, All those Mp;’s who have abused travel, accommodation and other allowances/perks. As I take it personal gain can also cover NOT incurring costs for the MP
                This site appears to mis use the term corruption just like many misuse “Racists”. They have become very emotive words that have little bearing on their actual meaning.
                And anyone defending their side is being extremely naive as i am sure with some knowledge we would be severly shocked as to the goings on by all.

      • Bright Red 39.1.2
        30 April 2010 at 12:21 pm

        Field got the punishment he deserved. Starting with being sacked by Clark in 2005.

        Bennett should get what she deserves too.

        Wouldn’t you say, ts?

        • tsmithfield 39.1.2.1
          30 April 2010 at 12:25 pm

          Slight difference between Bennett outing some overpaid beneficiaries who were happy to publicize their entitlements anyway and someone who was committing immigration fraud, don’t you think, BR. If you think the two are equivalent then it speaks more about left-wing morality than anything else.

          • Pascal's bookie 39.1.2.1.1
            30 April 2010 at 12:36 pm

            overpaid? Cite.

            BR didn’t say what they did was equivalent. He said they both should get what they deserve.

            Here’s the nub of it. You think it’s ok for the Minister to break the law as long as the victim is someone you disapprove of. And you’ll go into bat for them running defensive spin. Just as you did with Worth for several days.

            That’s your morality on display.

          • Akldnut 39.1.2.1.2
            30 April 2010 at 1:39 pm

            TS – There’s still a big difference in your comparison, Field commited his faux par for (himself) personal gain, Fat mouth commited her fuckup on behalf of the Nats.

            Field tried to pervert the course immigration.
            Bennett is trying to pervert the course of Natural Justice.

            Both immoral – both should be punished. No-one here’s defending Field.
            One has been dealt to, now it’s tme for the next.
            She should have the good grace to fall on her sword

  40. Rharn 40
    30 April 2010 at 11:46 am

    After watching the vid links on this I can not help but notice that Bennet is all mouth when it suites her but clams up with the cannot comment due to ‘process’ when it does not.

    I wonder if and when she has been found gtuilty of breaching the privacy act whether Key will consider her actions of a ‘less than sufficient standard’ and sack her. I’m not going to hold my breath on this.

  41. gary 41
    30 April 2010 at 12:09 pm

    unfortunately it seems like this might of been a terrible piece of reporting.

    No mention of it in the midday 3news bulletin so far… would think it would be in the first few stories if there was anything to it.

    Young reporter not checking her facts and jumping in on conclusions perhaps?

    Still, not a good look for bennet to even be going near this woman in such secret circumstances. And very hyprocritical to go claiming a privacy issue when she wouldn’t discuss it last night when approached.

    I was hoping there would be something more in this story. can’t stand this woman.

  42. pollywog 42
    30 April 2010 at 12:27 pm

    I know TV adds 10 pounds but jeez Bunter Bennett’s piled it on since being allowed to trough it up at the big table.

    I’m always wary of obese people telling me how i should get my life in order, let alone some random westie solo mum showing the country how to act responsibly as minister for social development…NOT

    She always looks like she’s expecting others to say shit for her so she can just grunt and nod in the background. I mean really , is this the best Key’s got lined up in the back benches ?

    captcha : rejects ( nuff said)

  43. The Voice of Reason 43
    30 April 2010 at 12:32 pm

    Another lie from Bennett, faithfully repeated over at the sewer:

    “Ms Bennett says 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”.”

    Thats from a Ministerial press release this morning that Farrar has fallen for hook line and sinker. There is no such comment in the Herald this morning, at least as far as their website is concerned. I don’t have the physical copy, so if its in the paper proper, I’d be happy to withdraw, but from here this looks like the bullshit is mounting.

    “

  44. gingercrush 44
    30 April 2010 at 12:35 pm

    I wouldn’t read too much about it not being on Midday (or whatever the thing TV 3 has at 12). They may be waiting for their 6 News bulletin.

    Regardless, both Bennett and Fuller are rejecting the claims. TV 3 therefore must produce those emails or they need to apologise unequivocally. If they have evidence then show us. If not then they must apologise.

    • Bright Red 44.1
      30 April 2010 at 12:43 pm

      sorry, where is the link to Fuller rejecting the claims?

    • ak 44.2
      30 April 2010 at 12:58 pm

      Apologise my ample fanny – TV3 deserve a medal for finally doing their job properly. Forget about money – a Minister of the crown visiting a beneficiary days before the report was due out is nothing but an inappropriate act of desperate and arrogant bullying that no amount of bureaucratic “process-speak” and “offered-discussed” semantic sophistry can disguise.

  45. Bright Red 45
    30 April 2010 at 12:43 pm

    My bet is the emails were leaked from the Privacy Commission. 3News seems very informed about when the report is due etc

    I hate the condescending, ungenuine way Bennett talks. reminds me of Shipley but less articulate:

    “I suppose at this sort of stage I’m not prepared to comment on that. It’s a Privacy Commissioner process so we’re trying to keep it a bit private”

    she must think we’re idiots.

    • HitchensFan 45.1
      30 April 2010 at 12:52 pm

      Agreed. And every time the fat bogan says “The Dream is OVER, people” I just want to throw something at the television.

  46. Pascal's bookie 46
    30 April 2010 at 12:45 pm

    The point is about a Minister breaching the Privacy Act, and if that is acceptable.

    If it is not, someone needs to determine if she did breach that Act.

    As with the Worth case, this is about governance and John Key as it is about the Minister.

    National Party supporters should be just as concerned as any one else, if not more so. If you support the National Prty, you support what they do.

  47. graham 47
    30 April 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Who cares
    so she told the truth about a few bludgers
    so what
    in the words of the useless dr cullen
    we won you lost eat that

    • ianmac 47.1
      30 April 2010 at 1:51 pm

      In this context graham, that is a plainly stupid response.

      • big bruv 47.1.1
        30 April 2010 at 2:09 pm

        graham is right, defending DPB bludgers is not the way to see Labour rise in the polls.

        Fuller should be thankful she did not speak out against the previous government where to do so would guarantee that you were immediately attacked by every government agency possible as Clark did not stand for people attacking her corrupt government.

      • Pascal's bookie 47.1.2
        30 April 2010 at 2:34 pm

        Yeah. I totes remember when the EB had their tax records released, and I was shocked when Ian Wishart was snatched off the street by the SAS and thrown out a helicopter.

        Moron.

    • Pete 47.2
      30 April 2010 at 3:10 pm

      graham, can you please, (for the benefit of those not picking up what you’re putting down) define ‘bludger’? I for one am lost, must be getting thick in my old age.

      kthxbai

  48. Feral 48
    30 April 2010 at 2:37 pm

    What spiteful bigoted posts in this thread. Why attack Paula Bennet Personally?.
    I guess its the Labour Lynch Mob mentality at work again.

    [lprent: The trolls are out today, even under new names. But the gravator is the same? ]

    • Feral 48.1
      30 April 2010 at 3:23 pm

      I had to change it as there was someone else posting under the same name.
      However who the trolls are is a matter of opinion.
      This Lynch Mob Mentality seems to epitomize trolling

      • Maynard J 48.1.1
        30 April 2010 at 4:14 pm

        The Merrill Lynch Mentatilty is worse.

        Oh, and speaking of personal attacks…how about a minister abusing confidential Crown information to attack a private citizen? Give a toss there feral?

    • HitchensFan 48.2
      30 April 2010 at 3:25 pm

      whatever Feral. Never happens on the right, eh? That short, fat, bigoted plonker DPF and his gang of old bigots are always so polite. They never personalise anything, no……..

  49. eye saw 49
    30 April 2010 at 3:30 pm

    A bludger is someone who’s living the “dream”lifestyle.
    The dream perfect bludge.The dpb.
    Actually DPB means deprived poor bastards, administered by the dominating perfect bitch ,maula benefit.
    captcha design.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.