The Opposition are going all ga-ga about Paula Bennett’s apparent privacy breach of Natasha Fuller. Bennett has stood up and said basically “so fucking what”
“I do not believe I have breached privacy.”
Asked if she would do the same thing again, Bennett said “it would depend on the circumstances”.
“I’m four years in the job now, I’d have another look at it based on what the recommendations and rules are around privacy.”
Fuller if you recall, a bit like a woman by the name Pullar, was very selective about details of her “entitlements” and Bennett called her on it by releasing the full picture.
The public will not see what the fuss is about and it is good politics by Bennett. If beneficiaries are going to lie about how much money they take from the taxpayer in the public arena the Minister should be able to release the truth.
Paula Bennett released the information not on behalf of herself or the National Party but in debate with someone taking from the taxpayer who was complaining.
The Opposition are making zero inroads into National’s treatment of beneficiaries because the public demands it. Jacinda Ardern has had zero impact and actually supports plenty of the measures the National coalition are putting in place.
Matt McCarten at the weekend even astutely observed:
Even the new blood such as Jacinda Ardern, at No 4, can’t seem to lay a hand on Paula Bennett as she goes about kicking the poor. The most attention Ardern got was when Maggie Barry made a nasty remark over her not having a child.
Well, and her upsetting remarks about Hamilton and not being able to afford a million dollar villa in Grey Lynn as a first home buyer.
National’s plan on getting tough on beneficiaries is a vote winner. People accept welfare in New Zealand but as a temporary measure and not a permanent one.
If beneficiaries are going to whinge about what the hard-working taxpayer is giving them then they should expect scrutiny in return.
In the meantime David Shearer and Labour Party members are still talking about “a guy on the roof” without that guy having the chance to defend himself. Or verification from a third party journalist that the “guy on the roof” even exists.
Hypocrisy? Much?
