Wheel-spinning Westie slowly gaining traction in the House

Paula Bennett defends herself during Question Time in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Not so long ago, the sight of Paula Bennett rising to her feet during question-time in Parliament had her National Party colleagues with their hearts in their mouths and silently praying she would be able to bat away whatever curve ball Labour had to throw at her.

Most of the time she made a strike of sorts. Occasionally she missed completely. Labour consequently had her high up on its list of vulnerable ministers to target.

In recent months, however, the self-proclaimed Westie has undergone a Pygmalion-like transformation from a rough-around-the-edges ministerial tyro to a more assured, informed and more confident parliamentary performer who is now much more to grips with her vast Social Development portfolio.

It seemed conceivable she might be turning into the kind of minister that no prime minister can have too many of in his Cabinet - a safe pair of hands.

She took particular relish last week in professionally rubbing Phil Goff's nose in the mess of his own making - the Labour leader's "welfare for millionaires" policy which would see those made redundant in the current recession getting the dole regardless of the income of their spouses.

But another week; another issue. Had Bennett breached the Privacy Act by revealing confidential details of state benefits being paid to a couple of solo mothers who had criticised National's cutbacks to training allowances? What she had done might be very popular, but it also raised questions of judgment.

In Parliament yesterday, Bennett cited the Privacy Commissioner's guidelines. She said those showed it could be the case that people going to the media were giving ministers "implied" consent to discuss their personal circumstances. But she added defensively: "This is not something we will be making a practice of."

The reply drew scorn from Labour MPs. A liberal interpretation of the guidelines, however, might suggest Bennett may be right.

She was on even less comfortable ground though when her Labour counterpart, the no-nonsense Annette King, upped the ante by challenging Bennett to release details of how much she had been paid by taxpayers when she was on the domestic purposes benefit, "having milked that fact on becoming Minister for Social Development".

"How much?" chanted Labour MPs as Bennett prevaricated, stopping short of saying she was willing to go into that kind of detail.

That response might be termed an "implied" double standard on the minister's part.

On top of that had been Bennett's odd responses to earlier questions from King. The latter put two seemingly incompatible statements to Bennett which the minister had made before and after last year's election. Asked which was true, Bennett replied "yes".

Speaker Lockwood Smith tried to be gentle.

"I may have missed the start of the honourable member's question, but I think she asked the minister to compare two statements."

Bennett said she was sorry but she thought King had asked whether she stood by those statements. Then she added: "I think she asked which statement was true and I would say both."

Both? Here was the Bennett of old, her engine revving but her tyres spinning and smoking in the neutral of hesitation and ambivalence.

National may well continue to try to exorcise the petrolhead politician in her which makes her so unique. But National realises in its heart that for all her visits to ministers' finishing school, Bennett and controversy are never going to be far apart.