Gog.org.nz

There is something deeply distasteful about a politician who abuses her power by exposing the private financial affairs of a welfare beneficiary for political advantage while she, along with all her colleagues, can hide behind official secrecy when it comes to parliamentary “expenses”. Social Development and Employment Minister and infant politician Paula Bennett is not working properly. In her latest arrogant cock-up, the immature Member of Parliament who represents Waitakere may have broken the privacy laws. She may have also set a sinister precedent.

For the impertinence of protesting against the axing of an allowance to help support their tertiary studies, Natasha Fuller and Jennifer Johnston were punished by the Government’s disclosure of their income details, authorised by Bennett, and duly published by our supine, self-righteous, sensationalist and sanctimonious media. It turns out that Fuller and Johnston are hardly extracting a fortune from the State, when set against the near $1000 a week Deputy PM Bill English claims for living in his own home. Bennett, also a former beneficiary, refused to come clean about her own welfare income or to apologise for her gross invasion of their privacy, saying instead: “It was important in the nature of fairness that people see the full story.” (It would have been useful for us taxpayers, in the nature of fairness, to know just how well Fuller and Johnston were doing at school but, alas, Bennett chose not to leak that information.)

Bennett’s problem is that she may not have revealed the full story as required by the Privacy Act, which states that ministers must not release information about individuals without consent, or in an incomplete or misleading way. Astonishingly, John Key instantly defended Bennett, even though he had not been consulted about the release of information beforehand. This could be yet another unfortunate knee-jerk reaction from Unjoined-up John.

As The Dominion Post’s astute political commentator Tracy Watkins said: “It will be interesting to see which way the Privacy Commissioner rules if the women take a complaint. But the impact of Bennett’s actions is likely to be felt more immediately. People will think twice about criticising Government policy if they know they are going to be hung out to dry by the Government.”

Well, Tracy, you can bet your sweet life that GoG will not think more than once. But if Bennett gets away with what looks like a blatant abuse of power against two powerless protestors, who will be next?

If you publicly object to income tax, will Finance Minister Bill English leak your returns to the media? If you are arrested for obstruction during an anti-government protest, will your personal history or criminal record be publicised before the court appearance? If you are sick, and fed up with the health service, could your mental history be exposed to the public glare when you step out of the waiting list and wave a placard? If you criticise the education system, will they release your poor exam results?

The cracks in Key’s inexperienced team are expanding as his personal credibility begins to crumble. What are we to make of a leader who, pre-election, made huge political capital by visiting South Auckland and talking about the Underclass, yet now appears to preside over a vindictive regime that seeks to damage the career prospects of poorer people, while increasing aid to private schools? Redneck talk-back radio naturally supports this sort of mean-spirited conduct. Fair-minded New Zealanders, on the other hand, are more than happy to see some of their tax dollars spent on ambitious people who could otherwise not afford to further their education and improve their lives.

National’s axing of research and development spending, its destruction of adult education and now its virtual exclusion of some financially-strapped people from tertiary education indicate that we may have elected a bunch of political cave-dwellers. Social Development and Employment Minister Paula Bennett is anti-social, politically under-developed and, having displayed a disgraceful “Us and Them” attitude, is unemployable in that portfolio.

Go away, Paula, and come back later, when you’ve learned something.

Meanwhile, we are falsely promised “transparency” about our MPs’ expenses, on the same day it was revealed that British MPs – now regarded as the lowest of the low after their swindles were exposed – secretly voted themselves about £10,000 each in non-declarable expenses. In around six months after being returned to Parliament, ACT’s Sir Roger Douglas has spent more than $62,000 of your money on air travel and accommodation for himself and his family (which he feebly defends as a right because it is also enjoyed by Helen Clark). That equates to flying round the world more than ten times. He has returned to Earth and the Beehive with nothing to show for it. Hone Harawira has spent more than $40,000 of our taxes on himself and his whanau. Bennett’s personal expenses apparently amount to more than $21,000 in six months. Heaven only knows what all the others have been up to, at our expense. Against their largesse, Tash and Jen’s demands on the State pale into insignificance…

All these expenses are “rights” and “within the law”. And that claim is precisely how British MPs tried in vain to defend their greed. It might just mean that the rights are wrong and the law needs reform. Otherwise there can be no justification for condemning Tash and Jen if their welfare payments are also within the law.

(If you’d like to further gaze with admiration upon Sir Roger and his stunning achievements, visit his badly-written website and find out why Roger is the most wonderful New Zealander ever born in the entire history of the known world:
http://www.rogerdouglas.org.nz/?page_id=5)
Strangely, for someone whose website so admires himself, there are very few available photos of the awesome Sir Roger. Here’s the one he particularly likes:

If, on the other hand, you believe that the likes of Roger and Hone, John, Geoff, Bill and Paula are opportunist birth canals and that most of their Parliamentary colleagues are guided by their snouts rather than their brains, why not invite them to pull your other leg?

---

---