Bennett denies talk of money with complainant

I know most of the beneficially are not recieving the true and proper amount of benefits over the years and this is a big job guys and more in the agenda to retreive..Goodluck and keep on digging..

Bennett is just another of the long trail of Ministers and MPs in this Key led NACT coalition whose behaviours, tactics and arrogance demonstrate the un-democratic tendencies of the National & ACT parties. There are echoes of David Cameron here when he rapidly had to change his use of words during his campaign in the UK. As he attacked Clegg and the rise of the Lib-Dems he argued that a coalition or the election of the Lib-Dems would remove the possibility of the UK electing a strong authorit(ian)ive party to govern the UK. Sounds like Bennett and Key prefer the idea of an intrusive, authoritarian state in NZ.

Problem is Ngaire... Paula Bennett went to see the other DPB lady in Invercargill before a decision was made by the Privacy Commissioner to conduct an investigation. Once that investigation is under way, it becomes unethical at the very least for Bennett to visit the complainant. In the light of that visit, it would now be interesting to know what really happened when she made the earlier visit to Invercargill.

Yes, heres a chit that will allow you to get a year 5 education Ngaire.

If the Commissioner stated that then I see a very clear problem with it, a beneficiary being confronted by a self hating ex beneficiary will always cause tensions, particularly when Fuller knows full well that at any given moment Bennett could target her again.

She met with a woman who can say whether or not her benefit is continued, or who could target her again.

Perhaps what you should be calling for is an apology on behalf of the privacy commissioner, I stand by the fact that this meeting should never have taken place, particularly following the emotional trauma caused by Bennett which has led this woman to seek counselling.

Was it the meeting held in the presence of an impartial ajudicator or resolutions coordinator?, if you cant see an issue with this meeting taking place and the way it took place or the fact that Bennett is refusing questions based on the need for privacy you are simply refusing to admitt how hypocritical Bennett has become after seriously breaching this womans right to privacy and damaging her emotional well being.

That just makes you and the Privacy Commissioner blind to the traumatic effect of such a meeting.

Making things up too are you Alan? I am not a member of any party so you are wrong again. A report on the radio this morning says that the commissioner recommends that people get together before she has to make a decision. Like Paula did with the first lady in Invercargill. All I do is read the facts not make things up and accuse others of unfounded rubbish. Maybe people writing on this forum need to be better educated before spouting off.

If you know what the facts are Ngaire please enlighten us, that would be nice.

As it stands Paula should never have had this meeting before the disclosure of the privacy commissioners findings.

Do you know for sure that John Campbell should apologise and not Paula Bennett?.

Just another paid national party media relations person arent you Ngaire, I hear they are big on hiring people to post in these forums.

They call it media relations, and these people are there to spin their own interpretation of events in favour of the National party... oh dont get me wrong, labour and Act do the same thing, its like viral media advertising relations.

Sounds like Mr Campbell owes both ladies an apology. Media making stories up again. Can we please have the facts ONLY please.

Is this spin doctor speak- "No money was ofered" - how about compensation was that offered ? A bit like no charge but accepting koha?

And why do these departments not have meetings between the accused and the accuser? because it can be seen to unfairly influence an independent process.

That is what Paula has done, tsk tsk

Ms Bennett is in an extreme position of power, Ms Fuller could be easily lead or intimidated by such a meeting.. it would be unfair and contravene Ms Fullers right to have a fair outcome.

It must be obvious to anyone who picked this story up on TV3 last night that Paula Bennett is trying to stop the public release of the Privacy Commissioner's report. She has known of the findings for about two weeks now, and it surely went against her. The huge irony has got to be that she's now claiming privacy for both herself and the complainants when she is the one who dragged their personal details into the public arena in the first place. She is unfit to hold the Social Welfare portfolio.