2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Does she stand by her statement that “people do have a right to privacy but they have in my opinion broken privacy deciding to go out there, put their names and faces to it as well in photos in the paper,”; if not, why not?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
I stand by all my actions and statements on this matter to date.
Does she agree with the Privacy Commissioner’s findings that there is sufficient substance in the complaint against her for releasing information about a sole parent for the matter to be referred to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings; if so, why?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
Whether I agree is irrelevant. That is what the Privacy Commissioner has decided to do, that is the process we are now in, and it is one that I will respect.
What has been the cost to the taxpayer to date for a 1-year long investigation by the Privacy Commissioner into her alleged breach of privacy, and what further cost will be incurred in legal fees, Crown Law advice, officials’ time, and possibly a payout, if this matter continues unresolved; and will it be more than the $15,000 reportedly sought in compensation several months ago?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I am not aware of, or responsible for, any costs incurred by the Privacy Commissioner.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not asking what the Privacy Commissioner’s costs were; I was asking what costs she has incurred.
Mr SPEAKERI do not believe that the member’s question was quite as precise as that. I believe that the Minister gave a perfectly fair answer to the question asked.
Why does she not immediately apologise for her breach of the Privacy Act over a year ago, and undertake not to commit such a breach in future, if only to minimise the mounting cost to taxpayers, who will have to continue to pick up her bill for this matter, which is now going before the Director of Human Rights Proceedings?
Does she regret whipping up, to quote her, a “horrific debate that’s been very personalised and ugly” against beneficiaries who dared to speak out against her cuts to the training incentive allowance, which would have helped to get them back into work; and why not stop the ugliness now by apologising, moving on, and helping those women step up?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
It seems to me that the Opposition does not want to have a debate about welfare. I would turn round and say that actually welfare is not a four-letter word; it is something that we do need to address in this country, it is a debate that we will have, and I will be proud to lead it.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not ask about what she thinks should happen in welfare reform. I quoted what she had said about a “horrific debate that’s been very personalised and ugly”, and I asked her what she would do to get back to work the people whose training incentive allowance was cut by her.
The—[ Interruption] There will not be debate while I am considering this matter. I think, in fairness, the question asked, if I recollect correctly, whether the Minister regrets something that led to something else. The Minister did not really say anything that related to the question. She instead said what the Government’s priorities were around welfare. I think it would be helpful if the Minister were to try to answer the question. I realise there is no precise answer, but if the Minister could attempt to answer the question.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
Certainly, Mr Speaker. The member asked about the training incentive allowance, and she made allegations that it had been cut. It was not cut. What happened was we addressed that funding to the more than 50 percent of people who are on the domestic purposes benefit who have such poor literacy and numeracy skills that they do not even have National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. That is where we are addressing that money—to where it is absolutely needed the most.