Straight answers? Short supply.

Written By: - Date published: 1:45 pm, July 29th, 2009 - 12 comments
Categories: national - Tags: , ,

Here’s Bennett’s answer to Chauvel’s question in the House yesterday:

Charles Chauvel: Was the Minister advised that the individuals concerned had given implied consent to the release of their personal information; if so, on the basis of what precedent; if not, why did the Minister not take advice on that point?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I looked at the guidelines that were on the Privacy Commissioner’s website. …

Mr SPEAKER: … there was a specific question about advice, and I think the House deserves to be given an answer on whether or not advice was received.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I stated in my answer, I certainly referred to the guidelines for Ministers that are on the Privacy Commissioner’s website. I felt that that was adequate.

Then just a few hours later on Campbell Live her story changed (first two minutes of the embedded clip below):

There are Ministerial guidelines… I looked at them before I did it and took some advice… I certainly took advice before I [released the information]. … [The advice was] from my office. I’ve got people there to give me this sort of advice and I took that advice. And I certainly was told that it had been done before and I certainly saw the piece that came off the website.

Sounds like there’s a way to go before the full story comes out.

I’d be particularly interested to know whether the Parliamentary internet access logs support her story that she accessed the Privacy Commissioner’s website before releasing the personal information of the women involved. And from whom did she take advice and when – exactly?

12 comments on “Straight answers? Short supply. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. IrishBill 1
    29 July 2009 at 1:50 pm

    I’d be particularly interested to know whether the Parliamentary internet access logs support her story that she accessed the Privacy Commissioner’s website before releasing the personal information of the women involved.

    I think that would go a small way to “rounding the story out”. After all we wouldn’t want to see a situation in which the minister could just make the statements she wanted “full stop”.

  2. snoozer 2
    29 July 2009 at 2:14 pm

    God, she looks like an 8 year old that’s been caught stealing something ‘the man said I could take it’ ‘which man?’ ‘ummm…’

  3. randal 3
    29 July 2009 at 2:21 pm

    she probably got advice form the person she gets her cream buns from.
    or is that sausage rolls and rubber chickens?

  4. pete 4
    29 July 2009 at 2:22 pm

    When you have such an obvious tell, you “certainly” shouldn’t go on national tv and repeatedly lie to the public.

  5. Daveski 5
    29 July 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Bennett should hold up a sign saying “No”. Key could then say he believes whatever Bennett says as she’s an honourable dude. Problem solved.

    More constructively, she’s weak out of her depth, and needs to go.

    But a warning for the Standardistas – high horses do buck 😉

  6. ak 6
    29 July 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Wouldn’t be surprised if it was the Keyster himself who not only gave her the advice but suggested cutting the TIA in the first place: after all, he accused solo mothers of “breeding for a business” and “would love to see wages drop”, so it’s two birds with one stone as the cabinet minister said to the activist….

  7. Peter Johns - bigoted troll in jerkoff mode 7
    29 July 2009 at 3:37 pm

    judging by the low turnout on this issue at The Std today I suppose most people agree with her. You are on a loser on this just like that [drop the homophobia] Chauval.

    • Ianmac 7.1
      29 July 2009 at 4:22 pm

      I think Peter, most people of all persuasions recognise a boo-boo from Paula, and we are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
      What if Paula is found to have offended law and/or ethics? What will John do given his track record to date and that he is relaxed about Paula’s actions?
      What about Paula saying one thing in the House and another on TV?
      What if her office person accessed the info without accreditation?
      Tune in tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow for the other shoe or two to drop.

    • roger nome 7.2
      29 July 2009 at 5:48 pm

      Shouldn’t that be “Peter Burns”?

      Did you know that homophobic men get hard-ons when watching gay porn, and non-homophobic men (who claim to be straight) don’t? It’s called internalised homophbia – you dislike yourself because guys turn you on.

      The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

      Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1996, Vol. 105, No. 3,440–445

  8. ConorJoe 8
    29 July 2009 at 4:24 pm

    You, Peter Johns, are the low in the turnout.

    It would appear the high standards that Worth fell under won’t be able to mount the Bennetficiary speed bump. Who else in this administration could do her job?

  9. Ms X 9
    29 July 2009 at 5:53 pm

    What the minister and the red necks seem to forget is that the dpb itself is less than $300 pw, the rest of the amounts mentioned would be Family Tax Credt and Supplementary assitance, such as Accommodation Supplements, which they could receive as Working For Families assistance. So no, the basic DPB is not massive. Which makes the whole circus pointless unless it was deliberately done to stir up an anti-beneficiary climate.

  10. DeeDub 10
    29 July 2009 at 11:51 pm

    Sue Bradford speaks to the issue beautifully in that Campbell Live piece, and she makes Bennetts’ slack-jawed ignorance and flights of arrogant illogic seem doubly stupid as a result….

    Bennett should go. Unfortunately I doubt very much that Key has the political stones to get it done without an actual finding of wrongdoing by the Privacy Commisioner. After all, wingnuts NZ wide are praising Bennetts’ bullying, and we all know where most of NACTS votes come from don’t we?