The Paula Bennett Allegations and what Journalists should be asking her

By   /   July 4, 2017  /   34 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

I’ve been in touch with the author of this Facebook Post and asked them about their allegations. The author of the post had this to say about why they were posting them and were they concerned about legal action…

Retired judge warns public after Paula Bennett threatens lawsuit over online post 

According to a cease-and-desist letter sent to a North Island man by lawyers acting for Ms Bennett, a post and video were published on June 30 containing “material highly defamatory of the Deputy Prime Minister”.

Dr Harvey told 1 NEWS that people who hit share on such posts should be aware they could find themselves at the sharp end of a lawsuit.

“They themselves could be deemed to be publishers of the information and be liable for whatever legal wrong they have done,” he said.

“It could be a breach of confidence, it could be intentional infliction of emotional distress … it could be the sharing of information under the Harmful Digital Communications Act or it could be defamatory.”

The letter from Ms Bennett’s counsel said “not only do these allegations very seriously defame the Deputy Prime Minister, but she, and we as her lawyers, will regard it as a form of harassment”.

“You should immediately remove this content.”

The lawyers acting for Ms Bennett say that further action could be requested in future in terms of remedial action and also say a restraining order could potentially be requested.

The letter emphasises Ms Bennett’s “categorical rejection” of all claims made in the post.

No corroborating evidence supporting the claims, which cannot be repeated by 1 NEWS, has been produced by the man.

Ms Bennett’s lawyers copied media organisations on the letter to the man warning them off publishing the accusations.

The Deputy Prime Minister’s office declined to comment further.

I’ve been in touch with the author of this Facebook Post and asked them about their allegations. The author of the post had this to say about why they were posting them and were they concerned about legal action…

…I then asked the author of the allegations why they hadn’t brought this to light in the 2014 election, they replied with this…

…the author has yet to provide any proof of what they say has any factual truth.

The question the media need to ask Paula Bennett is whether or not she knows the author of this post from her youth.


Want to support this work? Donate today
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook


  1. countryboy says:

    There are things I don’t need nor want to see. Spit on the footpath, rubbish in the gutter, another grey day, a smug sneer, my bank statements, a sick animal, velcro fastened loafers, TV commercials, big shiny banks, the Vauxhall Viva heralded as a ‘ classic’ someone vomiting/shitting/urinating, ( unless in sickness and distress. ) road squashed ducklings, a drowned, dead insect in old engine oil and any photograph of vile paula bennett.
    The evidence is before us. She’s an awful creature. I dare any sub-rat lawyer to defend her against that allegation.
    Did you know? Scientists are using lawyers in laboratory experiments now? They discovered there were some things even rats wouldn’t do. Robin Williams RIP.

  2. Red Buzzard says:

    well what should journalists and politicians be asking Paula Bennett?

  3. Mark says:

    I have seen the information. If the system is as anal about documentation as I have known it to be then I’m sure if someone were to investigate they would find out for sure if the allegations are true.

    The issue is she is part of those in control thus could just as easily make said information disappear.

    • David Baine says:

      Official information request her DPB info as that is what the OIA is intended for. Maybe quote social security act 1964 and relevant section if you can find it??

  4. Jack Ramaka says:

    Maybe will have to wait and see how it plays out through the Judicial System ?

  5. CLEANGREEN says:

    Paula Bennett is drunk with power, and looks like she will become the first NZ political leader as a real live “dictator”.

    Paula went from rags, then with our taxpayer assistance onto riches and now has become a dictator.

    Paula has lost her humanity, her soul, and finally now any sign of decency.

  6. stand alone complex says:

    jeez… judith will be rubbing her talons together with glee

  7. Shona says:

    Very poetic Country Boy.

  8. Wensleydale says:

    As much as many of us loathe Paula Bennett and would love nothing more than to see her political career go down in flames, we need to be careful. If someone has accused her of something, yet provided no corroborating evidence, then right now it’s little more than hearsay and conjecture. People have formed lynch mobs over less, and the last thing anyone needs, particularly during an election year, is to be accused of the same smears and dirty tactics at which National have proven themselves so adept. You don’t get one over on the Blue Team by descending to their subterranean levels of dubious conduct.

    Keep your powder dry people, but hold fire.

    • savenz says:

      We have other beneficiaries in JAIL with flimsy evidence. Time to prove we don’t have a 2 tier justice system. If an accusation has been made and it’s enough to put away others, where is the proper investigation and prosecution to see whether she is innocent or guilty of the crimes – even worse if she is deputy PM.

      Two good things to come out of it, exposing the hypocrisy of Paula Bennett and exposing the ridiculous laws and levels of flimsy proof around this for current beneficiaries.

  9. mary_a says:

    Could this be one of the main reasons for the introduction of the HDCA for keeping politicians,’ dirty history secret?

    • Jack Ramaka says:

      Whale has overstepped the mark on the odd occasion so they are just being careful with the introduction of the HDCA.

    • Jack Ramaka says:

      Whale has overstepped the mark on the odd occasion so they are just being careful with the introduction of the HDCA.

  10. Adrian Thornton says:

    Of course the thing is, National ministers have shown themselves to be so totally amoral,so untrustworthy, so willing to lie without the slightest hesitation, or it seems conscience while doing so, that this story immediately seems very plausible…I guess what I am saying is if this scandal is proved to be true…no one would be at all surprised.

    And yet National remain at nearly 50% in the polls, what an awful indictment on what must be the average kiwi’s internal moral compass (or lack of one apparently).

  11. bert says:

    If any of what Ashley has said is true, Bennett certainly joined the right team. Very deceitful.

  12. Z says:

    You state, “…the author has yet to provide any proof of what they say has any factual truth.”

    In normal circumstances an investigator collects evidence. This means any interview is conducted in an unbiased manner and the evidence is not inadvertently destroyed.

    Heaping the burden of proof solely on the letter writer seems a little unfair. He’s just come out and put his integrity on the line in front of the nation leaving him open to a very scathing and public criticism. For God’s sake isn’t that enough? It is in everyone’s best interest (including the Minister) that an independent investigation take place as soon as possible to establish the truth of the matter.

    I assume he doesn’t have $$$ resources to spare (and even less now legal action is pending).

    • Aimee says:

      Interesting Bennett says she ‘categorically rejects” the claims instead of “categorically denies” them.

      She also acknowledges she knows the accuser when she says “Hi Ashley,That was 30 years.”

      Are the media going to investigate this or just bury the story?

  13. A case for whistleblower process and procedures.

  14. Don s Cammock says:

    Paula Bennet is in a position of trust , and must be above reproach , Paula must be forced to answer basic questions does she know the man . Did she party while he was present. Remember she replied to him straight away and said that was thirty years ago . That tells me she must know him . Is this going to be another National Party cover up . The inept journalism from main stream media is pretty obvious. If it were a labour party member they would be all over it . Don

  15. I’ve read the Facebook post in question. There is one point made by the author which is factually correct;

    “…buying your house in Taupo with help from the government…


    …At the very same time as your house in Taupo was being supplemented by Housing New Zealand.


    …so you were receiving government assistance to buy a Housing NZ house in Taupo”

    This is correct, as Fran O’Sullivan reported on 3 March 2012;

    “At just 17, she gave birth to her only child, a daughter she named Ana. Just two years later, she got a Housing Corporation loan to buy a $56,000 house in Taupo. All of this while on the domestic purposes benefit.”

    Unfortunately, I can’t link to the Herald article – their website has removed “old” content.

    However, I have saved the webpage and will share a jpeg of it with anyone who wants a copy.

    However, that is one point that the author of the Facebook post has made correctly.

    In another story, NZ Herald journo, Amelia Romanos, revealed on 28 February 2012 that Bennett voluntarily gave up her jobs to go back on the DPB;

    In an interview with the New Zealand Herald in 2008, Ms Bennett said she worked two part-time jobs each day but was driven back on to the benefit.

    “I pretty much fell apart because I was exhausted. I went back on the DPB,” she said.

    (Again, no link – but I have saved the webpage.)

    If it ever does go to Court there are elements of Bennett’s “back story” that she may not be so keen to become public knowledge. Her reputation as a hypocrite for terminating the Training Incentive Allowance (the same TIA she exploited to gain a free tertiary qualification) is already well known.

    Does she really want to dredge up her past?

  16. ann johns says:

    She replied to him saying it was 30 years ago and that he remembers it differently to her. If she was so sure of herself, it would be a restraining order and charges by now, the use of the word “could” is telling. She won’t want it to go to a courtroom as she has now successfully fanned the smoke into a raging forest fire. Her PR team should be fired but I hope not, they’re doing a real crap job.

  17. Geoff Lye says:

    After watching the you tube video the guy recorded he states he has 21 witnesses. So definitely going to be interesting watching this unfold. He states Paula is not his main target but the destruction of the National party government because of its corrupt nature.

  18. David says:

    Paula should sue,if she does not then I guess we’ll have to assume the ten year old boys recollections could be true.

  19. linda says:

    so much of his story checks out in the public domain, look at this

  20. Pepper says:

    Dirty Politics are just fine when played by the National Party but when it comes back to bite them on the butt their only defense is to threaten the might of the justice system.
    “Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.”