Island Life: Good on ya, Paula
491 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
My take (with a hat tip to Charles P Pierce)
The "Three Great Premises" of New Zealand’s current political culture; First; "Any theory is valid if it is politically expedient to promote it. Second, "Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough." Third, "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it."
-
Tony I don't dispute anything you've said, however, one of the reasons for having a Parliament is that there can be a emphatic judgment made on what are otherwise matters for opinion only. Bennett's actions will be reviewed, the Privacy Commissioner will make a public determination and the House will debate that; what the PM does, should the Commissioner find Bennett acted inappropriately, is up to him, but I suspect a clear finding of fault will be made.
-
And incidentally, if Ms Shoff's decision impacts the practice of backgrounding and leaking otherwise personal information, as Labour and National are said to do, I'm fine with that too. Parliamentarians have enough privileges without also being able to discredit on the quiet.
-
And as for getting ministerial advice by taking a squizz at the Privacy Commissioner's website - what's wrong with Wikipedia?
Move over 'Crusher' Collins, here comes Paula 'The Googler' Bennett
-
Not that I'm recommending argufying on Kiwiblog but -
Wasn't planning to, but my poiint is that I don't bother participating in discussion there because when all you're going get is dismissed out of hand there's no point.
In a public forum like that, while you may not change the minds of those you debate with, you may have some influence over lurkers and other readers - there are a lot of 3rd parties who might appreciate what you have to say. Or not as the case may be.
-
I expect the Nats are already carefully moistening the bus ticket in preparation for use, in case Bennett's found in breach of the Privacy Act.
Key can't sack Bennett for this, having stood up for her in public. He'll be praying the Commissioner finds there was no fault.
-
Bennett's office now seems to be trying to avoid OIA requests for her supposed "advice"...
Speaking of which, I suggest adding this to anything you send to her:
this communication should not be interpreted as consent, either express or implied, to any disclosure of personal information held by MSD or any other government agency by the Minister or any other Minister.
-
In a public forum like that, while you may not change the minds of those you debate with, you may have some influence over lurkers and other readers - there are a lot of 3rd parties who might appreciate what you have to say. Or not as the case may be.
I was actually surprised at the range of opinion on today's Kiwiblog thread, under a long and dutiful post by DPF arguing that there's nothing amiss here.
A couple of the longtimers are actually quite wary about the idea of a government minister doing to a critic what Bennett did.
-
Anita has a better disclaimer here.
-
3410,
-
Andrew:"Move over 'Crusher' Collins, here comes Paula 'The Googler' Bennett"
Thats with a bout of googling out loud. GOL -
I suppose it's a bit of a lesson for what happens when you go out there and put your story and put what you, you know, perceive to be for everyone the full information that sometimes they do.
- Paula Benefit
Look , the full information actually does nothing to make the mothers' case any less real or or any less justified.
The amounts given can be eaten up by a family of three effortlessly. In auckland at least half of that money goes straight into a rental agreement if you want to give your children a reasonable and safe home. Then you are clothing, feeding, schooling and transporting (in this case) at least three people for seven days and at the same time putting aside large chunks of that money away for power,phone and unseen health bills and then trying to build up savings for emergencies. Forget insurance, forget holidays, forget entertainment, forget going out.We have got to stop dumping on our mothers and start recognising motherhood as a hugely rewarding investment in the health of our future society.
We've also got to get media commentators who can add up. Both woman and their children are living on fuck all at a very critical time in monkeys lives...the childhood period.This is not extravagance, it is in fact about $200.00 below what may bring a degree of peace to various DPB HOUSEHOLDS.
I also think it's amazing to think only 3 weeks ago the pauls, leighton and other light entertainers were crying tears of outrage that NZPOST wanted to know their finances.
How important is their privacy, ashamed of their paypackets maybe?
-
A job for Damian Christie?
-
3410: interesting. It's the page everyone was pointing at yesterday, containing guidelines for Ministers and apparently consulted by Bennett. There's a cached version here.
-
Anita's disclaimer in full:
---
A note to Paula Bennett, her cabinet colleagues, and their staff
In this blog it is likely that, from time to time, the authors and commenters will criticise government policy, speeches, and political tactics.
We would like to reassert that this is neither explicit nor implicit consent to release any private information about the authors or commenters that is held by any government agency, minister’s office, local government organisation, political party, or any other person, organisation or agency.
For the purposes of clarification this non-consent includes, but is not limited to, the following information:
- benefit status or history;
- family status or history;
- ACC status or history;
- health status or history – including information held by DHBs, PHOs, central government agencies and private providers whether directly or indirectly contracted by the state;
- interactions with justice or law enforcement – including complaints, interviews, interactions, documents supplied;
- employment status or history;
- any grants applied for or received; and
tax payments, status or history.In addition we would like to restate that posting or commenting here does not give implicit or explicit consent for any private information held about any author or commenter to be used for a purpose other than the purpose for which is was supplied. This non-consent includes, but is not limited to, the reuse of personal information for political purposes.
--- -
Between this and the policy of kicking out pregnant women on student visas, this is shaping up to be the most anti-women government we've seen in a while...
Not quite sure if you can blame National for the policies behind the immigration thing, but they weren't exactly leaping to the defence of the women in question once it became public. Danielle's point about "pay equity is too expensive" is far closer to revealing the true anti-women colours of our wonderful elected dictators.
-
I meant as one of the lawyers who might help out the beneficiaries. Entertainment as well as law.
-
Look , the full information actually does nothing to make the mothers' case any less real or or any less justified.
This, oh lord this. So it clearly wasn't to fairly "round out the story" as it added nothing to the story.
-
3410: interesting. It's the page everyone was pointing at yesterday, containing guidelines for Ministers and apparently consulted by Bennett. There's a cached version here.
Someone needs to find the answer to that. Might just be 'the internet', but if its been taken down, who did it and why?
-
Might be worth putting that disclaimer on all of our blogs actually....
-
3410,
Someone needs to find the answer to that. Might just be 'the internet', but if its been taken down, who did it and why?
Indeed. There is now a new page which is similar but not the same as yesterday's version.
Can we work out the differences other than manually checking?
-
Someone needs to find the answer to that. Might just be 'the internet', but if its been taken down, who did it and why?
It's not the internet. The page request gets a response -- it just says the page ain't there any more. The page has been removed.
-
Here's another version, inspired by Anita's good work:
-
Can we work out the differences other than manually checking?
Word track changes compare documents.
Which says there is no difference between the two.
-
3410,
Which says there is no difference between the two
Well, it has a new address, which is one difference. If that's all, then good.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.