Remember TV1 News last night. A surprised Paula Bennett was door stopped between her office and the house yesterday.
Pita Sharples had just informed the media that he was in negotiations to increase benefit levels as part of the Maori parties conditions for supporting the National parties ETS.
Paula Bennett knew nothing of the negotiations. ” I don’t want benefit levels to go up at all.” she said.
But today at question time she blustered and babbled pretending she knew all about it.
That was a lie.
The so-called “increase in benefits” appears to be the annual increase through the CPI (which includes any increase in electricity and petrol).
It looks like the National party thinks the Maori party don’t know how benefits are set and what is necessary to ensure beneficiaries are supported before not after their expenses are increased.
Didnt RNZ also say last night on Checkpoint that someone lied in the different accounts given by Nick Smith and Chauvel over the ‘negotiation’ on ETS .
It couldnt be that Nick Smith I thought, it must be another Nick Smith who in various Court actions wasn’t believed by some judges either
Interestingly a news feed story that has just come through suggests extra subsidies for home insultation are going to be made available to Maori. I thought the National Party were opposed to targeting assistance based on race?
I say good on the Maori party for negotiating hard over this one: Whatever the need, raising benefit levels is a tough sell politically, and the Maori party and the Nats will have their work cut out persuading the electorate it’s a good thing.
But I think they should try. There’s plenty of evidence some raises are overdue if the Nats want to see it. The MSD’s recent household incomes report is full of it.
Basically, the current settings- low replacement rates and incentives to work in terms of the in work tax credit- were designed for an expanding labour market: which we havent got now, in case people havent noticed! People losing jobs now are moving onto low benefits AND losing the in work tax credit.
Paula says its time for these beneficiaries to give back a little to the community. But the OECD are a lot more fair minded here.
In its report dated 15th June 2009 entitled GOVERNMENTS MUST DO MORE TO HELP MOST VULNERABLE AMID RISING UNEMPLOYMENT the OECD advise that “Governments must urgently adapt their labour market policies to help their most vulnerable citizens in the economic crisis … For this [to happen], political vision and leadership as well as dialogue and partnerships of government with the social partners, the medical community and civil society are needed.”
Dialogue such as, for example, negotiating with the Maori party about the real effects of benefit levels as they stand.
A few more details on the home insulation deal on TV3 news tonight. Looks like it will be targeted to low income households in certain areas, so not only for Maori. That’s different from what the initial story said, but details are still very vague.
Deleted Stay on thread Trevor
Yeah! What is it with National Ltd that they think they can get away with lying to the House. I know Lockwood protected John Key from having to explain his “rigourous analysis” of the cycle way, but now Basher Bennett is getting in on the action. There was something on the news last night saying Basher’s media minder was quick to point out that, in fact, she meant she didn’t want to see the number of beneficiaries rising rather than the actual benefit levels, but that’s just a litle too cute to believe, and Basher’s spluttering nonsense in the House today confirms that.
Still, worse than their lies is the new tactic of simply refusing to answer questions – what’s up with that? Has any other member got away with refusing to answer questions? What a dangerous precedent.
This is something that would have been nice to see in the initial scheme, and it’s great to see National ceding some ground on helping kiwis who are really struggling in this recession, not just bailing out bosses.
I wasn’t in the house when you asked the questions so you obviously have a different take on than me.
I did watch it on television though and at no no time did I see Bennett ” today at question time she blustered and babbled pretending she knew all about it.”
TV has the benefit of having all the jeering subdued so maybe
you were more distracted and could not hear her elucidate.
@ pentwig So what did she say then?
Do you guys have policy or are you going to run into the next election with “but she said this and it could have been a lie” as your lead vote grabber.
Sorry to say but all this piffling over what could be misleading is making you look very petty. Actually come up with somehting that will help the country and people might start looking at you as a vote worthy party again.
Deleted see below Trevor
Sorry, I didn’t read the thread properly could you delete the above post?
@ pentwig, Ms King, Mr Mallard (Out of interest do you prefer being addressed in any particular way on here?!)
Ms King, Pentwig has a pretty fair call IMO. On the one hand you specifically quote “” I don’t want benefit levels to go up at all.” she said.”, on the other, you maintain she “blustered and babbled” In the interests of fairness, what did she actually say in Parliament?
Of course she doesn’t. I’m pretty sure she wants them to go down and that was the real reason for giving two beneficiaries financial details to the media. I won’t be surprised, come next years budget, if they’re decreased the same way they were by Ruth in 1991.
@ Draco – that could be it. When the nats stand up and say – we are putting a stop to $1000 a week benefits – they will pick up a lot more votes than they will lose.
People have had enough.
Ms King you have accused Paula Bennett of lying to Parliament.
Could you please do as others have asked and state what she actually told Parliament?
Okay, seeing as noone wanted to tell us, I’m guessing that this is what you’re talking about?: (reproduced in full here because, to be honest, I’m not sure which bit is really relevant to your point?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports, if any, has she received on the adequacy of current benefit levels?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I receive regular reports on how vulnerable New Zealand families are doing. Although I closely monitor benefit levels, I am equally concerned at the tough times facing working families in this recession. I do not want to see benefit numbers increase.
Hon Annette King: Is it still the Minister’s position that she does not want to “see benefits going up, at all”, as she stated in the New Zealand Herald today and on Television One last night; if not, what changed her mind?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let me be quite clear that although it did not bother the former Labour Ministers, I do not believe that more people on benefits is OK. I am not prepared to write off families by leaving them trapped in endless welfare dependency. If I made a faux pas in the statement yesterday, it was that I meant I do not want to see increasing benefit numbers. We are legislating for CPI increases. After years under Labour when increases did not happen, we will be legislating for those CPI increases—end of story.
Hon Annette King: What explanation has Nick Smith given for not telling the Minister that he was negotiating with the Māori Party to increase benefit levels at the same time as she has been publicly telling New Zealanders that she will not increase benefits because we are in a recession and tough decisions have to be made?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is simply not true. The Māori Party has continually raised with us its concern for low-income families, and we take that concern seriously. Members can see it in the policies that we make. Alongside the Māori Party, we understand that employment and job opportunities for Māori will make a difference for those families. We will fight for that every time.
Tim Macindoe: Supplementary question—
Hon Member: The one-armed man!
Tim Macindoe: Stop slinging off. Has the Minister seen reports of how low-income families would deal with the cost of an emissions trading scheme?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. I have seen reports saying that they would fare much better under the National Government’s emissions trading scheme, which would only cost each family half as much as the scheme the previous Labour Government wanted.
Hon Annette King: Is it not true that although she is the Minister for Social Development and Employment, negotiations with the Māori Party on crucial decisions that impact on the expenditure of her portfolio were left to Nick Smith, and she only found out about it from the media at 2 p.m. yesterday when she was coming to the House? What does that say about who is running her portfolio?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: As the member desperately clutches for relevance, she will see that there is no big story here. Negotiations have been going on over the emissions trading scheme, which her party could not engage in in a responsible, good-faith manner. So now there is desperate clutching to try to find a story somewhere else where there simply is not one.
Hon Annette King: Who got it right: the Māori Party, which said it is negotiating a benefit increase; or the Minister, who said there is not one on the table? Is this not a return to the Auckland governance legislation, where the Māori Party was left with a clear impression that the Government would back Māori seats and then at the last hour was left out in the cold?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think members will find that the CPI increases will be happening to benefits and that will be locked in under this Government via legislation, which was not done by the previous Government. It will mean an increase in benefits and puts us on the same table and in the same book that the Māori Party is in, and I am quite proud of that.
thats interesting reading – could Annette King please tell us exactly where the lie is?
Yes it is interesting reading.
If Ms King cannot point out the lie, I would expect an apology to Paula Bennett?
actually if she cannot prove it – could she be charged with defaming Bennets reputation?
Once again a case of hot air proven to be nothing. I fully expect this Blog to be completely ignored now someone has pulled out the facts.
Accusing a minsiter of the crown of lying is a very major accusation but it seems to me that Ms. King has very little evidence of her claim. It seems to me the honourable thing for the Hon. Annette King to do is either withdraw her comment or make her evidence more plain for the public.
Should it be though? It’s a bit of a big thing to accuse another polly of lying isn’t it?
its worse than that – annette king is not making accusations – she has stated that paula bennett lied to parliament as a matter of fact.
she has make this comment to the public – defaming benette and should be held accountable for her actions.
Perhaps there will be a few who await your response Ms King.
In the meantime, Trevor Mallard, you are very active in this forum, and quite active in moderation and banning posters when they cross a line.
Could you tell me what your response would be if I, here on Red Alert, were to accuse an MP of lying, either in Parliament or outside it, especially if I did not front up with facts, quotes etc?
As ‘biker kiwi’ says it is worse than my previous comment, I think now the only option is for Ms. King to apologise to Paula Bennet then resign as deputy leader, too harsh? The title “Paula Bennett Lied” clearly states that Ms. Bennett presented “A false statement deliberately presented as being true” to the house, if this were to be the case I would think it would be appropriate that the Minister stood down, but as Ms. King has not backed up her claim I think it is right that she resigns, presumably what she would ask Paula Bennett to do over her ‘lie’.
Sorry about the delay in replying to messages left about my blog, been in Auckland all day.The lie Paula Bennett told Parliament relates to her statement on TV1 6pm News tuesday night.She was asked by Jessica Mutch if she knew about the negotiations with the Maori Party to increase benefit levels as part of the pay off for their support for the ETS. Her reply was ‘No, not at all’.The next day I asked her a series of questions including what explanation did Nick Smith give her for not telling her he was negotiating with the Maori Party and that she only found out about the discussions from the media. She replied ‘that is simply not true’ then went on to bluster about anything else rather than answer the questions. Either she lied to TV1 or to Parliament. Go to TVNZ web page and watch the interview with Jessica Mutch to see how taken by surprise she was when confronted by Pita Sharples assertions and make up your own mind. Talk about a shambles! Thats the problem when policy is made on the hoof and not every one is in the loop. The result?- A hastily cobbled together deal the details of which are only emerging as they make them up. Yesterday it was benefit increases today its home insultation but only for maori(Pita Sharples)But wait, no its for other low income NZers(John Key) but only in areas where the population is mainly maori(Pita Sharples) What will it be tomorrow?
I’m getting motion sickness watching all these different stories.
@ king “Yesterday it was benefit increases today its home insultation but only for maori(Pita Sharples)But wait, no its for other low income NZers(John Key) but only in areas where the population is mainly maori(Pita Sharples) What will it be tomorrow?”
this morning you said she lied to parliament – now you say it was either to parliament or TVNZ – what will it be tomorrow.
So,
- On TV1, she was asked if she knew about negotiations. She said no, and tbh, there’s nothing (other than Sharples own statement) that’s come out that says otherwise in relation to benefits for Maori. So no proof of a lie there.
- The next day you asked her why Nick Smith had not told the Minister that “he was negotiating with the Māori Party to increase benefit levels” She said that was not true.
Again, where’s the lie?
I haven’t seen any proof that any form of deal is/was/or ever will be on the table between the Nats and the Maori Party regarding benefits, other than what Pita Sharples said, which has been backed up by noone, even in the eyes of your own party! (See Chris Hipkins posts: Do the Maori Party get anything for the ETS?) . Honestly, if there WAS something on the table, would the Maori Party sit quietly while the Nats said there wasn’t?
Annette, sorry, I do not wish to appear offensive, but when you use the word bluster with regards to Paula Bennett’s response to Parliament, and after reading this thread now several times, (and watched the TVNZ video), I am left feeling that it is you that is blustering?
It may very well be that National/Maori Party appear to be cobbling things together, but you have yet to show clearly where the lie is?
And you did note the reply of Pita Sharples when he was requestioned by TVNZ?
As far as I can see, there is no lie, but it appears that there are a number of people who have strong points of view and are very keen to progress their agendas.
I rather suspect that you are misquoting Paula Bennett’s reply, or at least you are placing her reply out of context.
Does anyone else yet understand where the alleged lie is?
For reference, Pita Sharples last night: Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples has released details of free insulation for low income households after saying he was mistaken in believing he could negotiate an increase in welfare benefits.
not me Baz .. still waiting
Basher Bennett’s lie is blatant. How on Earth did she think she could get away with it? She owes us all an apology and should resign before she brings Parliament into futher disrepute – oh, hang on – maybe she’s following the Prime Goober Shonkey’s example and thinks the Speaker will cover her mendacity.
blip – may be blatant to you – but looks like almost every other person on here cannot see it. and king cannot actually say she lied to parliament.
I would believe BLiP could see it if he actually wrote it down, but once again it is a lefty using inuendo and no facts to try and force an unfounded point.
So this is what you are talking about Miss King
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/push-benefit-increase-in-ets-deal-2991701/video
seem to be Miss Bennet saying two sentances with no context as to what was asked. If you ask me it came off far more like Mr Sharpels was not sure of what he was saying backed up ny this
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/sharples-mistaken-over-benefits-increase-2994170/video
So any chance you are going to admit you haven’t caught her out in a lie, or are you going to keep trying to push this silly argument along with those school yard names like crasher and basher.
I remember much wailng when the last PM was refered to as Aunty Helen.
We we agree that Basher Bennett is a liar – the only dispute is about when she lied. Now I get it. So when did she lie, I wonder. Did she lie when taken by surprise or did she lie after she had some time to think about it? I guess it comes down to whether she is a spontaneous liar or a calculated liar.
Annette seems to be crediting Basher Bennett with actually being fundamentally an honest person so, when startled with new information Basher Bennett’s first impulse is to tell the truth and its not actually until after she’d had time to think about how foolish she looks that her arrogance comes into play and she thinks she can get away with lying to Parliament. That seems very generous of Annette. I would disagree – I would say Basher Bennett lied spontansouly because she is endogenously a liar.
How nice to finally have something I can agree with you about.
No your right BLiP. Ignore Kings own proof. Ignore the Video of Sharpels saying he was in fact wrong and the fact that question time backs this up and somehow makes it a lie.
It must be hard to so blindly try to find a problem where one doesn’t exist.
“It looks like the National party thinks the Maori party don’t know how benefits are set and what is necessary to ensure beneficiaries are supported before not after their expenses are increased.”
I don’t understand this sentence. Who is guilty of bluster and babble again? Hell, I can at least make sense of what Bennett says!
The Baron
Let me siplify it down to your level:
1. National Ltd thinks the Maori party doesn’t know how benefit rates are set – further,
2. National Ltd believes the Maori Party doesn’t know the steps required to ensure beneficiaries get support before it is needed, and, by implication
3. National Ltd thinks it can play the Maori Party.
There. Would you like a picture as well?
In what part of all that is a lie. Labour played the electorate for years.
IF that were true, then how is that a lie to Parliament?!
And if it were true, why wouldn’t the Maori Party be jumping up and down right now, saying “That’s not what we were promised?”
That makes nil sense!
Ms King, are we likely to get a reply to these concerns? It’s a pretty big call on your part, that appears to have nil backup.
Hello?…
The one reply from Annette King does not to my mind answer the questions raised.
It would appear that it is very easy (and acceptable) to throw around wild accusations, without any need to back them up. Is the sort of thing children do in the playground.
Politics suffers because of this inane, mindless, and bullying point scoring.
One of the worst offences on Red Alert is to abuse my mate Annie Trevor
Trevor, my point is that it seems to be Ok for her to abuse others on here baselessly, yet when she’s called on it, nowhere to be found. I’m not abusing her, merely calling it as it appears! Perhaps you can explain why she hasn’t fronted up?
I got to this site via asking “Mr Google” after giving some thought to the abovementioned complaints about Ms Bennet’s conduct since gaining office,and recent social policy “dependancy” rhetoric being bandied about in the media, and my observation of the recent NZ and world wide clamp down on people who are considered to be “unhealthily” dependant on the public purse. Questions come to mind regarding Ms Bennet’s credibility as a Minister. Regarding MS Bennet’s current attitude. I notice the upsurge in benficiary bashing seems to be concentrated on familiar targets (women and children as usual)She ain’t terribly together for a politition and seems to be bent on covering this up by the kneejerk reaction of softening the public up for a witch hunt by pouring vitriol on her former collegues
( namely women on DPB who probably voted for her,and who aspire to the same path she took to her current sucessful career)What a betrayal!!!
In an effort perhaps to draw away from this embarrassing fact and also to curry favour of her bosses and fanclub. Doesn’t she owe her current academic achievement, without which she would not have had sufficient academic credibility to be voted into her current employment,and to put this in terms that she and her supporters may be able to understand, “sciving off” on DPB whilst enjoying the state’s money to study whilst bringing up her child(ren)instead of adopting her children out to an adoption agency, or extended family, which is obviously what she expects of these sole mums who aspire to follow in her shoes, and working at part time jobs to learn from her past social indescretions of either bearing children outside of wedlock or divorcing her spouse to enjoy the benefits of the welfare state. If it is good enough for her to use her authority to embarrass the cr**p out of her collegues who challenge her actions by breaching their privacy, and closing the very pathway to sucess that she was allowed to get away with following. We have just elected the pot that called the kettle black! good work New-Zealand!