The Dim-Post

July 28, 2009

Question 4

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 1:48 pm

Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement “I will back those women into work and meaningful employment every time”?

The stakes here are incredibly high – the right to privacy, the right to free speech without fear of state reprisal – please don’t let Labour fuck this up.

About these ads

22 Comments »

  1. Is there a live/recent web feed (text) of Question Time anywhere?

    Comment by Gareth W — July 28, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

  2. http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/SeeHear/PTV/

    Comment by danylmc — July 28, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

  3. How did she deal with it?

    I missed that bit!

    Comment by Francoisbagkus — July 28, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

  4. Lockwood wouldn’t let Bennett off the hook. Good on him (and Charles Chauvel).

    “Implied consent” is the new standard, apparently. Also, websites have repaced lawyers and officials. It looks like Bennett didn’t do her homework.

    Comment by sammy — July 28, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

  5. “…Bennett didn’t do her homework…”

    Or she is to arrogant to care.

    Comment by Tom Semmens — July 28, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

  6. ‘Replaced’. Sorry.

    Comment by sammy — July 28, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

  7. King needs to go. For someone so skillful when a Cabinet Minister to be utterly useless in opposition. She needs to go. For Bennett to even do half-well against King is rather pathetic.

    Comment by gingercrush — July 28, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

  8. Yes, Gingercrush, that’s the burning issue here: Annette King.

    Nice try. (Actually, no – a feeble one).

    Comment by sammy — July 28, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

  9. ‘For Bennett to even do half-well against King is rather pathetic.’

    Good lord…Bennett had Smith alluding to the quality of her replies, Brownlee half hearted in her defence during points of order,the Opposition shaking their heads in wonder and certainly me wondering if she is trying to be ‘clever’ or if she is uninformed or just plain stupid.

    Comment by Peter Martin — July 28, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

  10. Look National has been in government for nine months. Labour chose to put the Social Development portfolio on King. Why did Labour give that portfolio to King? Because King was suppose to be an effective opposition member. I certainly thought she was going to be effective. In my opinion no one was a better Minister than her. Look at Health and for the time she was minister of that portfolio, health became a non-issue. King is an experience member of Parliament. Bennett by all respects is not considered very good as a Minister nor is well regarded as a member by the left. Therefore, you would expect Labour to be able to get the hits in. Have Labour done that spectacularly well? No. If Bennett is useless (which nearly any left-wing person will say she is) then why isn’t King getting the hits in.

    Here you had in the house a golden opportunity to get a major hit in on Bennett and King stuffed it. Therefore in my view Labour did fuck it up. Chauvel did okay but he just can’t seem to ask short and succint questions. You had the major political talk of the day and Labour had a huge opportunity to get a king-hit on Bennett and National and in my view they royally fucked it up.

    It seems to be status-quo for Labour at the moment. They get their opportunities and they keep stuffing it up.

    Comment by gingercrush — July 28, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

  11. Paula Bennett reports that she read (on the website dpf linked to) of the existence of implied consent as a concept, and thus decided she could release the information.

    She didn’t feel the urge to add what behaviour from the people was considered to be implied consent. Though I’m not convinced she understood that angle of questioning, which could make a proper explanation difficult to extract.

    Comment by lyndon — July 28, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

  12. The immediate headline in the online Herald doesn’t support you gingercrunch.

    “Bennett: I consulted website before releasing mums’ benefits

    Paula Bennett told Parliament that, apart from reading the Privacy Commission’s website, she did not seek any advice before releasing details of two solo mothers’ benefits”

    That is NOT a good look. Further, she looked a lethal combination of arrogant and scharmy in her answers. Bennett will now go to ground and refuse to comment, which at this stage of the governments life might see her through, depending how big a furore the media make of it. But she will be damaged permanently.

    Comment by Tom Semmens — July 28, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

  13. I think you’re confusing the media with the opposition Tom. The media are covering this story as expected and doing a fine job at doing so. Though of course both elements of the right and left will accuse them of all sorts of bias.

    Danyl is implying this case is about the right to privacy and the right to free speech without state reprisal. I don’t believe Labour highlighted that well in the house. I don’t think they put great pressure on Bennett.I don’t think they did enough for Key and others to force Bennett to resign. In other words I don’t think they operated well as an opposition. I guess Labour can comfort themselves in that the media will keep pressing Bennett and National. But for this to be an on-going issue the opposition needs to do more. So far the signs aren’t good on that front.

    Comment by gingercrush — July 28, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

  14. ‘I don’t think they put great pressure on Bennett’

    The Opposition has only a certain amount of questions available to use. Consider the time spent in Parliament today a fishing exercise with more to play over the next few days,unless National head this off at the pass.

    Depending on the noise in the mainstream media, I would expect an apology from Bennett soon enough. It would be great to see her tough it out though…

    Comment by Peter Martin — July 28, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

  15. [...] lose a bit of its shine, and so will its beleaguered Minister of Social Development. There are good threads about this at the Dim Post. Edit: Eddie has done some further digging to nail this down, too. L [...]

    Pingback by Kiwipolitico » Blog Archive » Guidelines on a website are not advice — July 28, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

  16. I think we can expect a “does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister for Social Development?” question tomorrow.

    That will certainly be interesting.

    Comment by jarbury — July 28, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

  17. Peter Martin: Consider the time spent in Parliament today a fishing exercise with more to play over the next few days,

    You’ve got to make the most of the opportunities you have, especially on day one when you can help shape the direction of the argument. It sounds like Labour didn’t get in an early, deadly strike, which would have been a dead cert if the arrogant but sharp Michael Cullen were still there.

    Comment by Ataahua — July 28, 2009 @ 4:07 pm

  18. The real issue is Labours continued thrashing around trying to find a genuine hardship case. What the hell are they doing, surely one of them must actually know a genuine person who can lay it all out in the initial attack.
    And before we all get up in arms about crossing a line lets try not to forget Helen Clark “briefing” against a police commissioner. Briefing of course is todays euphemism for blatant lie.
    Saying that, Bennet should have found a way to get the info out there without being seen to be involved. They still have some way to go before we can confidently say they are as tricky as the last govt.

    Comment by Barnsley Bill — July 28, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

  19. Oh. My. Fucking. God.

    Anyone who just heard heard Paula Bennett on Checkpoint now can be in no doubt – she released the informative as an act of spiteful political vindictiveness.

    Comment by Tom Semmens — July 28, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

  20. @Tom Semmens

    As I said elsewhere she just kept on the latest Nat spin line: Its all Phil Goffs fault!!

    Comment by andy — July 28, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

  21. Bennett will now go to ground and refuse to comment, which at this stage of the governments life might see her through, depending how big a furore the media make of it. But she will be damaged permanently.

    No Tom, no!

    Bennett is a westie (A westie! Did I mention she’s a westie?). She will ride through this with one hand on the wheel of her V8 Commodore with the other hand out the window giving solo mother beneficiaries a middle finger salute.

    Oh, and please remember that she is Key’s golden child* and therefore is exempt from all scrutiny.

    * Doesn’t give you much faith in his judgement, does it?

    Comment by Zoo Neeland — July 28, 2009 @ 6:03 pm

  22. On Campbell Live this evening Bennett changed her story. She said that she took advice from her office, before releasing the women’s details.

    She was asked about this several times in the House this afternoon, and made no mention of asking for, or receiving, any such advice. She only referred to the website.

    If we take the Benson-Pope case as a precedent, there should now be a series of questions from both the opposition and the media to establish exactly what advice Bennett was given, when, and by whom. And based on the same precedent, if the story unravels – if she has misled the House, or the PM, or the public – then she must resign.

    (and that is quite apart from the matter of any possible breach of privacy law …)

    Comment by sammy — July 28, 2009 @ 7:48 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 418 other followers

%d bloggers like this: