Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
To deal with frequent requests from other MPs that they investigate the case of some constituent or another.
Ok I/S, I can see something in that and I've not worked in a Minister's Office. I will say however, that I work for an public training provider supporting 500,000 enrolments per annum (that's not a typo) and MPs requests regarding why this, that an the other student hasn't got her certificate, log book, access to the library are handled by the Department, not the Minister's Office. I think the separation between operational responsibilities and policy ones is important.
-
She also writes that it appears from her answers to Annette King that Bennett has a computer in her office from which her welfare officials can access beneficiary files, thus enabling her to get the information without going through the chief executive.
Why on earth would she want/need this? Why on earth would the agency agree? It seems to transgress the normal separation of responsibilites and unduly exposes the private information to political misuse... kinda like what's happened...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Personally, I do think Bennett didn't have to go anywhere near as far as she did, and if she's found to have breeched the Privacy Act then I'd probably sack her. But pardon me if I find the Muldoon in drag analogies rather hard to take very seriously.
I'd've been surprised if you said otherwise Craig, I figure you to be reasonable and I can't see how Bennett's actions are justified. But I agree that's for Shroff to finally determine. Key is therefore in a difficult position having already indicated he's fine with her actions.
-
Matthew Hooton just said on the radio that the women weren't "telling the truth" about their circumstances.
Motherfucker.
I haven't stopped being surprised that Hooton's taken seriously by anyone but how he got on National Radio is thoroughly perplexing. How's a fiercly partisan hack fit on any RNZ format?
By sanctioning this assault on the fundamental rights of beneficiaries, the veneer of Key's caring new face of National is removed.
-
Well, Charles Chauvel is apparently laying a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. I doubt anyone here is interested in what Marie Shroff would have to say, since Paula Bennett is presumed guilty no matter what, but it should be interesting reading all the same.
No Craig, I'm very interested and yet, prima facie, I think Bennett's breached the standards; Cabinet Manual and Privacy Act. I'm happy to wait for Ms Shroff to determine the matter however and hope the PM will act appropriately when she does (since he's presumably guilty of prematurely excusing Bennett?)
-
Paula gave a polished performance and declaimed she had improper motive but that's simply not plausable. I suspect she had one too many coffees, let her status get the better of her judgment and rushed to action... naively and improperly. Sadly her boss thinks it's no biggy. So much for our reasonable expectation of good government hey? I hope Marie Shroff tears her to pieces... not that it'll matter, Key'll back her, the battler's love her, it plays to the gallery... who gives a fuck about the fairness of it... 'cept the rot's started I suspect.
I wonder if the details aren't noise with this. Stripped back, it is simply a case of a Minister releasing private information improperly to silence critics. That's an incredibly worrying development. Chilling to any and all critic of the government. Paula doesn't get it however...
Alternatively, let's keep the details in the frame. Bennett's bagging solo mums. Solo parents are some of the most vulnerable people in society. Bringing up kids by yourself must be unbelievably tough, I've got two kids and a loving partner and it's often damn tough. What the fuck is the Minister doing going a solo mum? Her payments are in order, there's no reason for the Minister to be commenting about her, exposing her to public scrutiny, disclosing her personal details... oh wait, yeah there is, they called Paula nasty... oh well, fair's fair.
I once defended Bennett here, she and I (like Kyle) briefly overlapped in student politics and I thought she had something to offer; I was wrong.
-
It's a bit too late for that. Key has declared himself "comfortable" with her actions -- and expressed the view that it would be better if all the facts were out in the open at the start of any such debate.
That's thoroughly irresponsible. The vicissitudes of politics might mean he's got to help her out a bit, she's dug up and published personal information provided to her agency in order to discredit her critics. That's reprehensible.
-
Okay, having heard the news report, and from one of the women whose personal information was revealed by Paula Bennett, and from Bennett herself ... I am officially appalled.
Yup. I think Bennett's actions have the potential to do to Key what David Benson-Pope did to Clark. Bennett's grossly breached the standards expected of a Minister and Key must act to avoid this setting a shocking precedent.