PM wants answers over Bennett document

17 Jan 2012 03:01p.m.

Clarke wrote:

We have to remember that John Key guides public policy not Paula Bennett. While Paula Bennett was the guiding face behind her hate campaign on beneficiaries.... lets not forget more company directors went to prison as a result of theft and fraud charges in the last 3 years than beneficiaries. Paula Bennett held up beneficiaries as a scapegoat... but she was directed to do so by John Key. Remember the benefit card idea? that again wasnt a Paula Bennett idea but rather John keys. John Key also publically used descrimination when saying "as recepients of public money beneficiaries had no right to privacy"... which is blatant descrimination as John Key gets paid with public money as do thousands of other state employees... they are entitled to privacy. National hate campaign was no different to what Hitler did to stir up anti jewish sentiment... the public is looking for something to hate or blame for the recession... so John Key gives them beneficiaries... just as hitler scapegoated the jews. Hate campaigns are nasty and have been so for centuries... that National thought they could get away with it was just arrogant and petty. The public need to know that those many many many company directors that went to jail... men and women just like John Key were responsible for the collapse of the markets through some very dodgey illiegal practices.. and more of them went to jail in the last three years than beneficiaries did. The real criminals have always been those in power.... because power just entices abusers... like Bennett and Key.

15 Nov 2011 06:04a.m.

Brent wrote:

@Rebecca Wright, So is it right that a protester change the Figures to suit the protest, is the protest a public protest if the protester asks the media to make there views public, You then ask the question of the Minster, Should the Media now stop asking the Questions?

14 Nov 2011 09:58p.m.

zac wrote:

Just as well parliament is finished for this term, the government would probably try and change the law to suit them.

14 Nov 2011 07:24p.m.

Rosemary wrote:

"I would have thought that’s a breach of human rights." Just when I thought Key couldn't come across any dumber, he does. Breach of human rights? On what grounds? In any case, Bennett is completely cooked on this one. She's blown it, and the Human Rights Review Tribunal is going to take her down.

14 Nov 2011 06:16p.m.

jan.. wrote:

Tallica1, is not thinking about the Aoteroa New Zealand but for the bloodshed oil spill to child abuse is what we recieved from the National Government and his three years of service..There's no way in Hell we let the National Government repeats those terms in our country, go to Hell' buddie..National Government left many heartbroken with a path of bloodshed to child abuse and oil spill, the 26 of November is a dead end for National..

14 Nov 2011 05:13p.m.

Clarke wrote:

Unless of course the Human Rights COmmissioner brings a case against Ms Bennett Tallica... in which case she would be legally required to resign her position pending a formal outcome. Then I guess it will be you whinging huh?.

14 Nov 2011 03:12p.m.

Tallica1 wrote:

Suck it all up you whingers. Bennett will still get back in and so will National. So...enjoy it lol.

14 Nov 2011 12:21p.m.

waka wrote:

I think a few people like Steve have missed the point, indicating that he is a true blue National supporter. The key issue is that Minister Bennett disclosed private information of an individual when she did not and still does not have the right to do so, breaking a law under the Privacy Act. Ms Fuller like everyone in NZ has the right to defend all accussations against her, however in this instance she did not because private details were provided that should not have been. This is not about whether or not she is a dole scammer this is about basic human rights and a right of dignity. So now the PM says that Ms Bennett is a victim; I disagree as she brought it upon herself. So for those who support Ms Bennett do so with both eyes open. To Ms Fuller and all those others who suffered the indignity....good luck

14 Nov 2011 10:37a.m.

Chris01 wrote:

I must take issue with Anna - nobody is 'entitled' to any sort of welfare. They get welfare because other people earn enough to pay taxes and beneficiaries are fortunate enough to live in an egalitarian society. Take away those two elements and bye, bye welfare. Don't forget that the highest earners, who make up 17% of the population, pay in excess of 95% of the tax. Perhaps, Anne, you can tell me how much more tax these people should pay so that they are paying 'Their Fair Share' as Phil Goff puts it. And when will these good taxpayers (the rich ones everyone hates) just get fed-up with the constant criticism and being fleeced and just leave for better pastures, what then?. Maybe it's time for beneficiaries to realise that the concept of 'enough to live on' is linked to earning capacity and subject to other people's readiness to pay for them. Personally, I have no problem in crooked beneficiaries being outed. They should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but clearly they see this as an opportunity to fleece yet more money from taxpayers.

13 Nov 2011 09:45p.m.

Clarke wrote:

@Steve the term redneck comes to mind. Paula Bennett is paid with tax payer funds and she still retains the right to privacy as do tens of thousands of others. Just because you want something doesnt mean you are entitled to it. If everyone in receipt of state funds had no right to privacy why is John Key allowed to hide his conversation with John Banks? which took place in a public place?. Your argument holds no merit whatsoever... people receiving working for families and kiwisaver also receive tax payer funds... as do pensioners... in all honesty if we looked at your argument.. no one would be entitled to any privacy... you should try a better less bigotted argument girlie. Stop shoowing yourself up as a redneck bigot Steve... its rather sad and pathetic... but anything to distract from the illegal actions of Paula Bennett huh.