Bennett Smacks Privacy Commission With A SFW

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?

 

  • kiwidon

    Go Paula!
    All those sucking on the public tit should forgo any rights to privacy about their income. In fact they should expect to be audited at least once a year!

    • cows4me

      Not only an audit Kiwidon but also a random drug test at least once a year. If it’s good enough for the worker to be randomly tested why not those claiming welfare. Can’t go looking for work if you spend most of the day spaced out.

    • Neil

      You mean like superannuitants? Yes please – I’d love to know how much they’re getting as well as getting the public hand out!!!!! BRING IT ON!!!

      • pukakidon

        Sorry Neil I don’t mind supporting the old and the very young. It is the right thing to do. However those bludging on the dole and DPB can go to hell. They are just plain lazy.

        You don’t happen to be an Italian sea captain do you?

        • fozzie

          Duhh you can’t help the young if you don’t support the parents …

  • Phar Lap

    Well just like Shearers bludger on the roof,Paula told the truth about the person who was whinging that her benefits of between $40,000 and $50,000,was not enough to live on.Well her handouts are taxpayers free money, to the whinger.,Seems she was like Oliver Twist she wanted more.To think that Duchy from the so called human rights, has made such a song and dance about it smells of Lie-bour and Red/Green interference.

    • Phar Lap

      To think the opposition critics would even attack such truth ,indicts the whole lot of them as proven troughers and want their affiliates protected.Now lets put the blow torch on them starting with Shearer.One thousand dollars a day,no questions asked.As for the rest of them up to $200,000 per year,whatever for

  • Mark

    Audi alteram partem

  • Neil

    Lies versus selective memory – an old horie one that one is. How much do you tell and how much do you leave out that ends up destroying any legitimate complaint you have – you end up defending the bits you left out and everyone forgets you might have made a legitimate complaint.

  • huh

    Isn’t labour the ones talking about pay disclosure in private sector employment? Funny you can’t talk about benefit disclosure, but salary is ok??

  • tarkwin

    As a form of meaningful protest Fuller should cancell her benefit forthwith. That’ll fix Paula and remove the risk of this happening again. This way everyone will win – the tax payer in particular.

101%