This is why we need the Greens in government

Written By: - Date published: 7:15 am, August 4th, 2017 - 247 comments
Categories: benefits, class war, election 2017, greens, Metiria Turei, welfare - Tags: , , , ,

 

He aha te mea nui o te ao, He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.

 

 

#GreentheGovt

 

Resources for beneficiaries

NZ Beneficiaries and Unemployed Workers Union (Facebook)

Beneficiaries Advocacy and Information Services

Auckland Action Against Poverty

Beneficiary Advisory Service

Work and Income Advocates (Facebook)

Community Law Centres

Any of these organisations should be able to help or refer you to help in your own area.

 

247 comments on “This is why we need the Greens in government”

  1. outofbed 1

    Yes of course we do.
    but pragmatic politics, I am not quite so sure.
    Time will tell

    • Pragmatic: (Google definition)

      praɡˈmatɪk/
      adjective
      adjective: pragmatic

      dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

      Consider that very carefully and then ask: What is pragmatic about poverty?

      Because I can’t see any practical benefit of reducing people to the point that their skills and knowledge are wasted as our present system does to so many.

  2. OncewasTim 2

    One of the twits in the link raises the issue of electoral enrolments.
    Which then of course raises the question of an abode and homelessness.
    I’ve tried to find out how those sleeping in cars and shop doorways should complete their enrolment forms.
    Any ideas?
    The best i can come up with is that the address should simply be something like ‘wellington City’, or Cuba St, wellington

    • dukeofurl 2.1

      Doesnt apply. To register at an address you certify that you have been there for at least a month minimum. You seem to have forgotten the huge difficulties home less people are under, registering to vote is the least of the daily issues they face.

      Dont forget John Key lied in his electoral enrolment, putting himself down for an extra house he owned ( oh the irony!) in Peak Rd Waimakau, in his future electorate, all the while he was residing in his family home at Orakei Rd Remuera.

      • Carolyn_nth 2.1.1

        Yep and Key lived in an electorate he wasn’t standing in. Was on the Helensville electoral roll and lived in Epsom.

        See the attachment to this tweet:

      • OncewasTim 2.1.2

        You assume I’m unaware of the daily issues they face.
        I often talk to the homeless, and a few have expressed their desire to register and vote.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1

          The law says give the last address you lived at for at least one month. You need to be able to retrieve your mail though.

          • OncewasTim 2.1.2.1.1

            As I thought OAB.
            I was tempted to begin a bit of a rave in reply to the Duke but decided I had better things to do.
            Suffice to say I was wondering whether he/she was just being pompous.
            I interact with the homeless daily and currently have 2 staying in the family home who’d otherwise be without shelter other than a shop doorway.
            The inference in his/her reply that the homeless/indigent have pressing day to day issues, stress,etc was suxh that they aren’t concerned about trivial things like voting or trying to participate in their community just astounded me.
            I may have misinterpreted the reply above, but if not …. mmmmmm pompous gittus springs to mind.
            I have 2 here wondering about their options, and asking about the possibilities for their over-18 friends

      • Keith 2.1.3

        So what Duke, like it or not what Key did was totally legal, not ILLEGAL. He had a house in the Helensville electorate.

        You could argue therefore that Helen Clarke lived most of her time in Wellington and or elsewhere but voted in Mt Albert because that was where she had a house and that was wrong.

        Splitting straws on your opinion of how the law is written does not justify Turei’s incredible stupidity.

        [lprent: When Helen Clark was in government and parliament was sitting she used to spend at least part of most weekends at home in Auckland. At other times when she wasn’t on holiday or offshore, she’d tend to divide her time between Wellington, Auckland and her parents. I was both in her LEC and maintaining her computer gear. The residence requirements aren’t particularly restrictive. ]

        • Robert Guyton 2.1.3.1

          Keith. No one is trying to “excuse” anything. In any case, your description of Metiria’s actions as a 20-year old as “incredible stupidity” is overheated to the point of risking a hot-vein-burst. Apply the Ice pack of Reason and Tolerance, Keith, asap.

          • Keith 2.1.3.1.1

            No one would care very much at all if Ms Metiria Average was going about her daily life doing whatever.

            But she is not, rather to state the obvious she is standing for government, is already an MP and a leader of a major political party and she committed voter fraud. How many things are wrong with that picture?

            Undermining the electoral system as a representative of that system is not only a bad look, it is radioactive politically.

            Take the ice pack off your brain and see blatant reality when its staring you in the face.

            I despise National because they are so dishonest, unethical, immoral and dodgy and as far as politicians go we have far too many like it. What say you if Todd Barclay had done the same?

            • Robert Guyton 2.1.3.1.1.1

              Keith – Metiria was young, poor and NOT A POLITICIAN at the time. You’re behaving as if she “undermined the electoral system” yesterday. Todd Barclay (thanks for bringing him into this discussion) did what he did WHEN HE WAS AN MP FOR THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT (capitals used for emphasis, ’cause you can’t seem to see it). Todd should be answerable for his actions as an MP, as should Metiria. Her actions, btw, were to volunteer the information, that is, come clean, VOLUNTARILY. Weird, I know, and probably incomprehensible to you, Keith.

              • Keith

                Incomprehensible is that you cannot see that in 2017 she admits voter fraud, after being investigated for benefit fraud and she is running for government.

                And I could care less if she came clean, its now too late.

                • Keith – a di minimus mistake 25 years ago disqualifies a person from being a member of parliament?

                  You okay?

                  I remember Peter Dunne having to admit in Parliament to smoking cannabis, but even he shouldn’t be harpied in the way you are Metiria, though it’d be fun.

                • Incomprehensible is that you cannot see that in 2017 she admits voter fraud

                  [Citation needed]

                • greywarshark

                  OOH er the sky is going to fall. She only voted once presumably and placed it where it could back her friend. Thousand thanks to her for voting and trying to do so for the good of people she knows and the country by taking an interest in the political system.

                  Stop fulminating all you petty little utopians. Nothing has to run perfectly all the time. The only things that run perfectly are systems where there is allowance for movement without warping.

            • weka 2.1.3.1.1.2

              “Undermining the electoral system as a representative of that system is not only a bad look, it is radioactive politically.”

              How is she undermining the electoral system as an MP?

        • Delia 2.1.3.2

          It was her residential address and electorate in Auckland, she worked in Wellington in Parliament, are you totally stupid?

        • dukeofurl 2.1.3.3

          This was before he became the MP. There is nothing to stop you living where you like when you run for parliament, only requirement is that you are enrolled somewhere.

          The enrolment forms require you to ‘have lived at the address for the last month’.
          Key could not have truthfully said that , as he never moved into the Peak Rd address. And of course later moved his enrollment to his current Parnell address

          Living at one address but enrolling at another- if its not allowed for Turei , its not allowed for Key.

          Once you are an MP, and spend most of your time in Wellington, there are rules to allow ‘ an adress in your electorate’ But only while you are an MP. Plenty dont live inside their electorate boundaries anyway for all sorts of reasons, especially in the bigger cities

    • ianmac 2.2

      And of course Bill English lived in Wellington while voting in Clutha. Another reason for National to not get too precious, Let alone Paula Bennett’s problems.

      • dukeofurl 2.2.1

        a different rule once you are an Mp, for the circumstances around spending time in Wellington

    • The Fairy Godmother 2.3

      They need a postal address. Perhaps it should be able to be the city mission.

    • Chess Player 2.4

      Why don’t they all just use their local MP’s office address.
      You know, cut out middle man…

      But really, I can’t understand why a postal address is needed at all, given our connected world.
      Other than to deliberately dissuade the young from voting, of course.

    • OncewasTim 2.5

      Ok so it wasn’t my intention to derail things into a sidebar issue, but it is relevant and also another reason why Greens must figure in our next govt.
      Electoral roll issues are the very same as those facing people at WINZ.
      Actuallt, there is no reason why applicants shoyldn’t just use the actual address of their local WINZ office is there if they have ‘no fixed abode’?

  3. outofbed 3

    Slightly off topic sorry Last couple of elections I have signed up at least a couple of dozen people whilst campaigning, just by asking if they had enrolled and having a enrollment forms in my bag. It’s easy if you go for a drink or shopping just ask the staff who they are voting for, engage with them, most interested but not high on their agenda to get it sorted, just need a little nudge. A few hundred activist doing that would make the difference. I find it more effective than door knocking

  4. Muttonbird 4

    The Left hate that there are poor people, while the Right hate people that are poor.

  5. Keith 5

    I am really starting to worry about Metiria.

    The beneficiary thing has become a double edged sword as we have seen but now voter fraud, and in essence that is what it is, is only going harm the cause even more.

    She is a professional paid politician standing for government and the whole democratic process relies upon integrity when voting. Now she admits to enrolling somewhere else not where she lived to support someone standing for Parliament. FFS!!!!

    The Greens have been ostracised over the years by National etc, quite wrongly, for being drug smoking village idiots and yet all Metiria is doing is undermining the cause and doing an immensely ham fisted job of taking any positive attention away from the left, yet again potentially sucking the oxygen from the campaign for all the wrong reasons.

    • Ovid 5.1

      I have to say I am disappointed over the false enrollment stuff. A week ago I was flirting with voting Green and I found the benefit issues forgivable, but now my preference for Labour has firmed up – mainly due to Ardern, but this is also an issue.

      I’m not joining the calls for Turei’s resignation, but I can’t find myself offering a defence for this either.

      • lprent 5.1.1

        I just find your ideas and those of Keith about residency to be completely moronic and just stupidly
        ignoring reality.

        When I was 20, I was at university in Hamilton, but enrolled at my parents place in Mt Albert. The reason was pretty obvious. It was my only stable address.

        I was a student at Waikato university and moved several times that year. I was in the territorial army so spent considerable time in various bases and camps. I was also doing earth sciences, so I spent a lot of time on field trips.

        When I wasn’t doing those things I was either at my parents, or I was off doing work for Ceramco at various sites around the country during my holiday breaks as part of my scholarship with them.

        The only place that I had a reliable mailing address was my parents, so all mail was directed there and it would have been the address that I put down on the electoral form.

        I find it hard to understand exactly what you idiots are objecting to. In effect you appear to be saying that residency is a criteria for voting. Next hing you dickheads will be wanting proof of owning property?

        There are only a couple of reasons for the residency requirement in the electoral act. One is to establish which electorate you can vote in – which in MMP is a pretty obvious vestigial anachronism bearing in mind the amount that people travel these days. The other is because the electoral commission uses the postal system to check if they can still contact people. Which bearing in mind that I currently get about 2 bits of mail per month also seems as much of an anachronism as having a listed phone line.

        • RedLogix 5.1.1.1

          Exactly. I once voted in an Auckland electorate that was my parent’s home address, when I’d just spent the previous year or so tramping in the Southern Alps.

          Maybe I should throw myself at the mercy of the Courts.

        • Ovid 5.1.1.2

          The only place that I had a reliable mailing address was my parents, so all mail was directed there and it would have been the address that I put down on the electoral form.

          Your circumstances fulfilled section 72(6) of the Electoral Act so you’re in the clear. Or are you arguing Metiria did not break our electoral laws at all?

          In effect you appear to be saying that residency is a criteria for voting. Next hing you dickheads will be wanting proof of owning property?

          I understand Turei’s benefit fraud because when there’s a difference between making ends meet I think such action can be understandable. When it comes to electoral enrolment, there are no such pressures there. And yes, in general terms residency in an electorate (especially in the days of FPP) is important otherwise it opens up the possibility of packing out a marginal seat.

          She signed that enrolment form. She lied. That is my objection.

          I also don’t appreciate the insults. They don’t do you credit, Lynn.

          • RedLogix 5.1.1.2.1

            Brian Edwards, scarcely a raving Marxist, nails it this morning:

            I’ve been trying to find a suitable term to describe the army of self-righteous Kiwis who have emerged from the swamp of primarily anonymous online and talkback comment to take aim at Metiria Turei. ‘Hypocrites’ came close but just didn’t seem adequate to fit the bill. Frankly I wanted something stronger, something that would convey my disgust at the lack of honesty, self-awareness and common humanity displayed by these writers and callers. And by some of her colleagues in Parliament. I needed something biblical.

            And there it was: Matthew 23:27:

            ‘Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.’

            http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2017/08/on-whited-sepulchres/

      • Gabby 5.1.2

        I guess it’s up to her party to sort out.

    • Gabby 5.2

      She’s taken a lot of heat off the scabbier nats. Pretty hard to tsk tsk over Pullya, Toddger and Bingles with the Meteria Show in town.

  6. Pete George, srylands et al are hitting their straps now, picking at Metiria with their sharp-nailed forefingers. This situation, as expected, is luring the shriveled of soul out from beneath their veneers of respectability and encouraging them to let fly that bile they’ve nurtured for so long, holding it in when their own people crossed the moral and ethical line; keeping it for someone from the other side of the tracks who deserves their carefully-cultured odium.
    The lines are drawn.Where’s James?
    He has a Baba Yaga finger.

    • Tuppence Shrewsbury 6.1

      And yet you are always amongst the first to cry foul when a politician on the right behaves unethically. Village idiots. Love it

      • As representative of village idiots everywhere, I thank you, Tuppence, for your kind words. Crying foul when politicians on the right behave unethically – you mean we shouldn’t?
        I see (despite my village etc status).

        • tuppence shrewsbury 6.1.1.1

          I’m for calling out all politicians. but excusing metiria’s behaviour because her opponents do it is not what the greens are about. apparently they hold themselves to a higher standard

          • Robert Guyton 6.1.1.1.1

            She wasn’t a politician, she was a poor, solo mum and her misdemeanor?
            De minimis. Your interest? Unseemly.

            • tuppence shrewsbury 6.1.1.1.1.1

              and now she is. so it’s now public interest. quelle horreur?

              • And now she is a politician dedicated to improving the lives of people who find themselves in the position she once occupied; I know! Let’s try to bring her down, take her out, ruin her future as someone who can make New Zealand a better, fairer place to live! “quelle horreur” indeed.

          • Robert Guyton 6.1.1.1.2

            “excusing metiria’s behaviour because her opponents do it”
            No one has. It’s valid though, to remind people such as you that there has been a number of cases outside of the Green Party that are far more worthy of investigation, yet somehow seem to have slipped through your Net of Outrage.

            • Tuppence Shrewsbury 6.1.1.1.2.1

              They haven’t slipped and I haven’t excused them.

              There is acceptable level of known dishonesty for any politician. Her intentions are good but her actions speak otherwise

      • Violet 6.1.2

        You understand scale eh Tuppence?

        • tuppence shrewsbury 6.1.2.1

          it’s no david garret, but he well exceeded the threshold

          • RedLogix 6.1.2.1.1

            While this is well below it. Fuck off.

            • Tuppence Shrewsbury 6.1.2.1.1.1

              No it isn’t. At all. It’s above it. It’s endless dishonesty while expecting others to behave impeccably.

              It’s shabby at least and hurts beneficiaries at its worst

              • what a knob – garretts stealing a dead babies identity is below having the wrong address in an electorate??? – my god you are a boring asinine twit with substandard ability to reason and argue – I wish you’d go away.

                • Tuppence Shrewsbury

                  It’s above the Threshold for dishonest and therefore is worthy of scrutiny.

                  not in relation to what garret did. Which is waaaaayyy worse.

          • Delia 6.1.2.1.2

            .. and was useless and not in the same class of Metiria by miles. False ID. Come on. This is a disgusting witch hunt against the Greens due to popularity. I have never voted them, but I just might now.

    • Ad 6.2

      It was more truthful and more effective to hear on Radio New Zealand this morning from a family of 10 whose mother just died in a car crash, but who are being evicted in three weeks by Housing New Zealand, and are facing living out of cars. RNZ has been doing those stories long before the Green Party went for the story themselves.

      • Carolyn_nth 6.2.1

        Metiria has been standing up for and speaking for beneficiaries since before she got into parliament.

        She has tried doing it through policies and the system – as has the Green Party. It has only when she made her personal confession about being on benefits, that the media and bennie and Metiria-bashers sat up and took notice. What does that say about our society and culture?

        RNZ 2014:

        She is a member of the Parliamentary Services Commission and the Maori Affairs Select Committee, and the party’s spokesperson on Education and Social Equity.

        Before entering Parliament Mrs Turei was a lawyer and an advocate for the unemployed and beneficiaries.

        Turei in 2013 on Bennett’s punitive welfare reforms.

        Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said sole parents and their children were being demonised by the reforms.

        “Welfare reforms that punish these women for having children are a complete distraction from Government’s failure to provide jobs,” she said.

        Metiria Turei speaks in the Annual Review Debate on Child Poverty and Rental Housing on Wednesday, May 4, 2016

        And 22,000 of those families will be losing money because of the income-related rents. About 40 percent of beneficiaries will be losing money from that $25 because of other services or other funding they are getting through the Ministry of Social Development that they will not be entitled to. So when this Minister stands up and says that beneficiaries get $25 extra, she is not telling the whole truth.

        Greens launch billion dollar plan to reduce child poverty Metiria Turei MP on Sunday, August 17, 2014

        Andrea Vance on Green Party policy 2014:

        Co-leader Metiria Turei said the policies were aimed at “building a fairer society where every child in this country has enough of what they need to thrive.” Every cent of the extra tax revenue would go towards poverty alleviation.

        There are 205,000 children living in poverty costing taxpayers $6-8billion a year, she said.

        “Kiwi kids growing up in poverty are three times more likely to be admitted to hospital, five times more likely to die of cot death, and 27 times more likely to get rheumatic fever, and die earlier than those who are better off.”

        Turei was bought up in financial hardship. She has pulled herself up out of that and campaigned consistently for beneficiaries and those in poverty.

        • Ad 6.2.1.1

          Now that’s a classic case of “it’s wrong to be right too soon”.
          And a completely unnecessary gamble to take.

          • Robert Guyton 6.2.1.1.1

            Too soon? She was right all along. Gambling perhaps, but the race isn’t over and there’s a furlong or two to cover before it is. My money’s on the Green woman.

    • “let fly that bile they’ve nurtured for so long”

      That’s very ironic from you Robert.

      Greens have a serious problem, attacking anyone who mentions it won’t help, it just makes things look worse. Something you are well practiced at.

      Turei gambled and seemed to win, but that looks like it has turned to custard, just as Ardern and Labour look like bouncing back after they realised that Little was a liability.

      Turei looks increasingly like a liability for the Greens, and abusing anyone who mentions it won’t change that, it just shows that Greens can be as vindictive as anyone else.

      • You_Fool 6.3.1

        Do you think that Bill English should resign? He lied about where he lived and claimed money he didn’t deserve.

        How about J Key? Do you call for him to be charged with election fraud for claiming to live in a house he did not so he could be on the roll in a specific electorate?

        Are you calling for Paula Bennett to be investigated over potential benefit fraud?

        Are you calling for Judith Collins to stand down over her dealings in China?

        If you call for Metiria to resign/be prosecuted for what she has done, then you must also call for all these 3 to resign/be prosecuted or you are a partisan hypocrite

        • Pete George 6.3.1.1

          Appropriate pseudonym.

          I have criticised English, Key, Bennett, and Collins, when issues involving them warranted it.

          I haven’t called for Metiria to resign or be prosecuted.

          What do you think of the situation she has created for the Greens?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 6.3.1.1.1

            I think you are desperately trying to spin it as negative because that’s how you feel about the Greens. Meanwhile, their polled support has gone up by 3-4%, and clearly there are very many people who simply don’t believe the crap you do.

          • Psycho Milt 6.3.1.1.2

            What do you think of the situation she has created for the Greens?

            What do I think of a politician admitting the things they’ve done up front instead of lawyering up or weaseling out of it with disputes over what “is” is or what hat they were wearing at the time?

            What do I think of a politician who takes a great personal risk in order to get the social welfare system onto the political agenda?

            I think that’s a pretty fuckin’ awesome politician, and the situation that politician has created for the Greens is that people like me now recognise they have a pretty fuckin’ awesome politician on their leadership team and are going to try and put them into government.

            The “situation she has created for the Greens” among people who are not potential Green voters (people like Pete George of Your Blancmange, for instance) is irrelevant, for obvious reasons.

            • Carolyn_nth 6.3.1.1.2.1

              Yep. Many people have consistently bashed the Green party for being one for nice comfortable middle class people with a bit of social and environmental consciousness.

              A GP leader shows she is of the stuff of the earliest NZ Labour Party, and not squeaky clean middle class white person born with a silver spoon, and they slam her and the party.

              Starts to look like some just have it in for the GP whatever way they try to stand up for a fair and more inclusive, functional and caring society.

              • Phil

                Turei was born with a silver spoon compared to most on benefits.

                • Carolyn_nth

                  I call BS on that. What do you know about Turei’s childhood?

                  Her address “for my father”

                  “Her maiden speech”

                  • Anne

                    I call bullshit on it too. Its just another DP made up meme to bash her with. There’s no evidence whatsoever she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth.

                    Also all those commenters who are banging on about her false enrollment – give me a break! That was 20+ years ago when she was still a very young immature woman in her early 20s. Reminds me of me at the same age.

                    Are you all so naive as to imagine it isn’t something that doesn’t happen all the time? Of course it does. Some people don’t want their real addresses known for a variety of reasons. Many young people have pretended to be still living at home for the purpose of voting when they left home years sooner. Metiria’s excuse was the heady euphoria in that her best friend was a candidate and she wanted to vote for her. I remember knowing a few people who did exactly the same for the same reason – they wanted to vote for someone who lived in the electorate of a parent/parents so for the purpose of voting they ‘moved back home’.

                    The hypocrisy over Metiria’s actions are now entering the ‘Land of the Absurd’.

                • weka

                  I disagree with that and the irony there is that the reason that the Greens got to stand up on this issue is because it affects so many middle class people who now have her back.

                • Delia

                  Was she how? I never got that impression. Getting off a benefit as a single parent is actually a success story, but she is handy to damn because the Greens just got to much traction this election campaign.

                • Kay

                  @Phil- define “most”?
                  The many of us who were born into a reasonably comfortable life, who went on to tertiary education, got decent employment, even in the professions, then got knocked down by severe illness, or another unexpected life event (including shock, horror, being left holding the baby)? There’s an awful lot of us.

                  Or are you referring to the small unfortunate minority where there’s intergenerational povery because of very complex and multiple problems that aren’t that easy to solve? They are not “most”.

                  Please clarify.

                • Venezia

                  Phil…without evidence to back up your statement this seems malicious to me. Given what information is publicly available, the facts are the opposite of what you say. https://home.greens.org.nz/speeches/my-father-address-reply

            • Jeremy 6.3.1.1.2.2

              +1 I agree completely PM

            • Pete George 6.3.1.1.2.3

              I’ve not only been a potential Green voter, I’ve voted for both the Greens (party) and for Metiria (electorate) in the past so your pettiness is misguided.

          • Sabine 6.3.1.1.3

            thanks to he situation she created she is getting my vote and that of a few others. and that is within my personal little friend circle.

            so yeah, she does well, and she has been doing well for a long time. Contrast that to National who in 9 years managed to create nothing but homelessness, defunded health care, cow shit infested waters, endless stop and go in AKL, overcrowded classrooms to name just a few.

            I mean look at National, 950 $ shoes for Mrs. Bennett, Mr. Sabin and his issues, Todd Barclay and his issues, Bill English – greed driven housing welfare fraud, Mrs. Oravida Judith Collins, Mrs. Oravida Jenny Shipley, Dildo Baggins Joyce, and Colemen – do i get to kill sick people, all just fine upstanding citizens that daily do nothing but plunder the country and screw the citizenry.

            Oh dear. Does it hurt to have to defend this current do nothing, know nothing, can’t be bothered National Government?

          • Draco T Bastard 6.3.1.1.4

            What do you think of the situation she has created for the Greens?

            She hasn’t created a situation for the Greens.

            She’s highlighted a situation that National created with their punitive welfare system and that Labour have been ignoring. A situation that looks bad for National and Labour because of their actions.

            The Greens look like they’ve got a spine. National and Labour look like they’ll kowtow to anyone with money.

          • KJT 6.3.1.1.5

            Up 5% in the polls as people realise there is a politician who empathises with their plight.

            Seems like a good situation to me.

            Of course Labour will now put a big clumsy hoof in it.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.3.1.1.5.1

              Of course Labour will now put a big clumsy hoof in it.

              They’ve managed to stuff all their feet into Labours mouth about it.

              They’re wrong and don’t understand why.

    • srylands 6.4

      I don’t have any bile for anyone.

      My main comment in this affair has been the (apparent) lack of support by the father. Why did the father not pay child support? Metiria has said that she was solely responsible for the financial support of her child. Where that DOES happen, I am all for a strong welfare system that helps out. However, I am totally against parents colluding to pass responsibility from the patents to the taxpayer. Given that in this case there IS a father, what on earth went on with the child support issue? That is very much the business of the government if you put your hand up for welfare support because you have a child. In fact it is the first question anyone should ask.

      New Zealand needs a strong environmental voice in Parliament. the problem with the Greens is there is a struggle between the environmental block and the communist block. I hope that this affair allows the former block to come to the fore.

      Nobody knows how this will impact on the election results. And things could change much in the coming weeks. However my best guess now would be a result that has the Greens in single digits, Labour and National both in the mid-30 percent range, and NZ first deciding who forms the Government, with the Greens on the outer again.

      And that is a bad thing. We need a strong environmental voice in parliament. We need rational climate change and water policies. I don’t see Labour or national doing enough on those fronts. Which is why I would like to see TOP in Parliament.

      • Molly 6.4.1

        Big sense of outrage there srylands over the father’s role in bringing up a child.

        As far as I know, you have two options when you look for regular child support.
        1. You register with Income Support and have a guaranteed – albeit non-livable amount paid to you on a regular basis,
        2. You enter into a private agreement with the non-custodial parent and rely on their adherence to that agreement for income.

        If you choose option 1. then the government seeks to recoup payments from the non-custodial parent. They do that by looking at the declared personal income of that person, and arrange the amount of repayment to the government accordingly.

        As may be apparent, this impacts universally on non-custodial parents whose income is paid in the form of wages or salaries. However, this approach does not have the same leverage with business owners who may take a minimum wage from their business, or those with benefits and access to assets from trusts or other entities which are organised to reduce personal income while retaining a higher quality of lifestyle.

        For many years, those with low personal income, were only required to repay government at a rate of $10/wk. It would be interesting to see how many of those were truly low-income non-custodial parents, or just had their assets organised in such a way to qualify.

        Do you have any comments about such parents, srylands or are you saving your manufactured outrage for this particular parent?

      • blueyed1 6.4.2

        Did you ever think srylands that you need both parents signature to be able to register your childs birth and if you do not know where he is you are made to hire a lawyer and prove you do not know where then it goes to court where a judge has to sign it off saying you genuinely do not where the father is, case closed. If you think you have an easy road bringing up a child on your own think again. I am so sick to the back teeth of people judging solo mothers and beneficiaries, when these people do not have a clue. I even get it from my own family, national voters of course. Unless you have walked a mile in someone elses shoes please do not judge.

      • AB 6.4.3

        “struggle between the environmental block and the communist block”
        You could fit all the actual communists in NZ inside a combi van. Your political spectrometer is gunged up with crap (probably your own)

      • However, I am totally against parents colluding to pass responsibility from the patents to the taxpayer.

        We’re all taxpayers – including the father. And most of us get round to having children and thus receiving government support.

        In other words, this is one of those things that doesn’t matter because of the mass cross-subsidies that are happening all the time. It simply isn’t worth the effort to try to measure it and it isn’t worth the effort to try to get more from an individual.

        General taxation is far more efficient than user-pays and thus costs far less.

        • RedLogix 6.4.4.1

          And that’s the most brilliant response ever!

          The current system is a muddled, dysfunctional, punitive and creepy hot mess. It pisses off everyone involved with it just as much as the benefit system does.

      • adam 6.4.5

        srylands do we have to suffer through more days of your ignorance on how our system works. With more of your fake ethics?

        Plus the whole red scear thing is so 1950’s of you.

      • Chess Player 6.4.6

        I agree srylands.
        The unwillingness of the Greens to simply focus on environmental issues is holding them back (again).
        Given how often (un-often) Labour seem to gain power, and that the Greens will only get into power when Labour do (due to their own decision), the chances that anything remotely good for the environment will get implemented are low.
        Hence I too think TOP has some good things going for it.

        • RedLogix 6.4.6.1

          That’s pretty much my logic too.

          By positioning themselves permanently to the ‘left of Labour’ it pretty much renders the Greens a pack of commie loons in the minds of much of the electorate.

          It’s not a fair or reasonable perception, but very hard to counter. Meanwhile CO2 levels rise and the rivers fill with cowshit.

          • Chess Player 6.4.6.1.1

            Yep – it’s a shame alright.
            I’ve voted Green in the past, for both party and electorate vote, but I struggle with doing that again.
            I felt it was necessary to vote for them years ago when they were marginal in terms of getting over the threshold, as I really want the environment to be represented properly, but now they are over that consistently I think my vote is better spent elsewhere.
            Of course, if I thought they would drop below the threshold I would probably vote for them again.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 6.4.6.1.2

            National and Labour have failed to address AGW and water quality and it’s the Greens’ fault…

            You an’t see anything wrong, not to say utterly delusional, about that proposition?

            • RedLogix 6.4.6.1.2.1

              I want to be able to vote for a vehicle that will effectively represent the environment. So far I’m just getting old waiting for the Greens to make it. It’s hard to rate their chances of being part of any govt anytime the next three or four elections. Is it so bad of me to say that out loud?

              The utter failure of the Nats and Labour to address the real issues is NOT the Green’s fault, but who are we to blame for the Greens inability to get over 15% even on a very good day?

              Shit just 20% would be nice.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Blame is stupid and useless so I don’t really waste much time on it, but if you insist, I’m happy to blame you. Unfair, I know. Whoever said life was fair?

        • Draco T Bastard 6.4.6.2

          I agree srylands.

          That would be because you’re as much as an ignorant idiot as he is.

          The unwillingness of the Greens to simply focus on environmental issues is holding them back (again).

          Translation: Dear Greens, please fit yourselves into this small box that I’ve constructed for you so that I can categorise and ignore you more easily.

          A political party does what it’s members want and not what delusional schmucks from National, who’ll never change their vote, want.

          Given how often (un-often) Labour seem to gain power, and that the Greens will only get into power when Labour do (due to their own decision), the chances that anything remotely good for the environment will get implemented are low.

          So, why aren’t National doing for the environment rather than fucking it over?

          Oh, that’s right, because it would lower profits for their rich mates.

          • Chess Player 6.4.6.2.1

            Why are you so angry?

            [lprent: If you start that idiotic shit again, then you will be on my hitlist for stupid trolling. This is your only warning. I remember your tactics from over the last decade. So you are here on a slim sufferance. ]

            • Draco T Bastard 6.4.6.2.1.1

              Why did you revert to ad hominem?

              Oh, wait, it’s because you’re a RWNJ without any ability except to parrot stupid lines given to you by Crosby/Textor.

              • Chess Player

                Sir, you called me an ignorant idiot.
                And then used the rest of your reply to spout generic rants, rather than respond to the point I was making in my post.
                Clearly you are angry about something?

                • Sir, you called me an ignorant idiot.

                  That’s because you’re spouting nonsense.

                  And then used the rest of your reply to spout generic rants, rather than respond to the point I was making in my post.

                  I responded quite specifically. Specifics that you’re obviously too stupid and ignorant to rebut hence your reversion to stupid ad hominem.

                  Clearly you are angry about something?

                  No. Just pointing out your stupidity hoping that you’ll learn from it but I’m not going to hold my breath on that.

                  • Chess Player

                    Well, after that, all I can say is I really hope you get the help you need.

                  • RedLogix

                    @DtB

                    I’m not moderating now … but if I were you’d cop a ‘cool it’ note.

                    [lprent: ie don’t feed the troll. Let me do it. ]

        • McFlock 6.4.6.3

          The Greens focused purely on environmental issues is like the doctor focused solely on cauterising rectal bleeding, rather than looking for and addressing deeper issues like possible cancer or why the patient was using so much NSAIDs in the first place.

          Look at housing – goes straight to energy consumption.
          Waterways are always going to be full of shit unless we change how we farm or deal with urban water catchments.
          ISTR there are also studies that suggest inequality wastes resources and costs us more than an equitable society – never really bothered to look into it because from my perspective we should avoid inequality because it’s bad, not because it’s expensive.

          • Chess Player 6.4.6.3.1

            Totally agree it’s all related.
            However, if politics is the art of the possible, people wanting change have to get inside the tent somehow if change is to be effected.
            Sitting outside and squawking is simply not going to get any practical change occurring.
            You just get pointed at and ridiculed (unjustifiably, in my opinion).
            The only other option is a completely radical change such as a revolution, and I don’t think anyone in NZ really wants that. Or maybe Draco T Bastard does.
            I just heard today that after building new lanes on Auckland’s North Western motorway, National are now saying ‘let’s add a bus lane, let’s add a cycle lane’.
            Who knows, maybe given the pressure their mates at Fletchers are under, they felt they needed to push a few more tax dollars that way.
            Nothing will ever stop moronic bureaucrats from stuffing up basic infrastructure planning, but if an environmental party that didn’t have a ‘left wing’ badge on them was involved, this kind of stupid double-spend could be avoided and at least some enviromentally-friendly benefits delivered.

            • McFlock 6.4.6.3.1.1

              Well, maybe the nats’ next supplicant in an unopposed wealthy electorate will be a trivially-green party that will calculate the carbon credits accrued by the rough of a golf course.

              But quite frankly any “environmental” party that ignores the exploitative, wasteful and polluting nature of capitalism is simply greenwashing its way to oblivion.

              The green party isn’t after your vote. It’s after the votes of people who realise the current system is a swarm of locusts, devouring everything before looking for the next field – but we’re fast running out of fields. We need to get sustainable, quickly, and that includes how we treat people.

              As for what’s possible… that’s what the election will show us.

              • RedLogix

                But quite frankly any “environmental” party that ignores the exploitative, wasteful and polluting nature of capitalism is simply greenwashing its way to oblivion.

                Fair enough. But when the average punter reads this, in the absence of any other information, they fairly quickly calculate that the binary opposite of capitalism must be communism.

                And they surely don’t trust that narrative.

                • McFlock

                  Indeed.

                  After hearing the plaintive cry of tories that the greens are going beyond “simply environmental issues”, and then realising that this is a shallow concept of environmentalism, and then following that with the idea that maybe the deeper concept is unattainable in the current political climate, and then realising that the problem is with capitalism as it exists today, then some of those few voters who remain inf the discussion might suddenly stop dead in their analysis of the situation and decide that it’s only a choice between “capitalism” and “communism”.

                  But I suspect that if anyone gets that far, most of them will probably keep going and find other alternatives, probably along the lines of what the Greens are doing now.

                  • RedLogix

                    Well if the Greens have trouble selling it to me – and hell I vote for them – what chance the other 85%?

                    What am I missing?

                    • McFlock

                      [looks at heavens, counts to ten, tries to keep straight face]

                      I really want to give a constructive answer, but i might need to take a while to get past all the smartarse candidates first. 🙂

                    • McFlock

                      sorry, your question was a bit too open-ended 🙂
                      The possible responses got a bit like the “big nose” bar scene in Roxanne.

                      Better now.

                      What exactly are you having difficulty buying from their decidedly non-communist policy manifesto?

                    • RedLogix

                      Thank you. Very helpful.

                • Chess Player

                  And this is the exact point. Sufficient people having high trust in a completely opposite alternative system that they have never experienced is missing.
                  And to be fair, communism (regardless whether that is what is being proposed by anyone posting here) has fewer examples of success that capitalism. So who can blame them for not having that trust.
                  This is why I think the ‘slowly, slowly, catchy monkey’ approach would be much more practically effective.

                  • McFlock

                    Dear Google,

                    What is a “false dichotomy”?

                    Grateful thanks in advance,

                    Some tory who wasn’t going to vote Green anyway (esq.)

                    • Chess Player

                      Amazing how many of the discussions on this site end up with a personal insult.

                      [lprent: Well if you consistently act like a gormless fuckwit – what do you expect. I really don’t like your style of game playing. But I’m happy to keep annotating your comments if you wish to play games. ]

                    • McFlock

                      How was that an insult?
                      Patronising, yes, but then so is the “if not capitalism, then communism” dichotomy. That was tired in the days of Joe McCarthy, ffs.

                    • RedLogix

                      Well Dear Google came up with this helpful introductory list. And wasn’t even patronising about it:

                      http://listverse.com/2015/06/28/10-potential-alternatives-to-the-conventional-capitalist-system/

                    • McFlock

                      Problem solved then.

                    • Chess Player

                      McFlock 7:44pm

                      ‘How was that an insult?’

                      You called me a tory.
                      Perhaps you’ll call me a nigger next?
                      Either way, the logic of your argument will not be improved by greater use of insults or harder bashing on the keyboard.

                    • McFlock

                      @chess:
                      that… er … that doesn’t seem like a bit much of an escalation to you at all?

                      I mean, “tory” is more of a description than an insult. I didn’t even put “bloody” in front of it. After that I’d probably start with your literacy, your intelligence, and then your mother’s species, your base and intemperate character, certain comments about your ability to provide sexual gratification to another person or maybe merely implying some niche habits of self gratification (possibly involving a mirror or a picture of Bill English), and other various epithets that utilise the patois of the street. Should I choose to start insulting you.

                      But I don’t believe I’d ever be dropping the n-bomb in that context.

  7. “but that looks like it has turned to custard”
    To you it might, Pet, ’cause you’re excitable and have had a sniff.
    But not to me. I’m rock-solid.

  8. Rae 8

    I have long been a Green voter. Meteria Turei will have to go, she threatens the credibility of all Green MPs – rightly OR wrongly.
    Little left because he was able to see he was not getting any cut through, Turei needs to see how her staying will undermine the Greens position. Sorry folks.

    • Keith 8.1

      Agreed, she is taking the ship down with her if she clings on. And what else is lurking beneath the surface?

    • Carolyn_nth 8.2

      Whether Turei stays or goes is beside the point. She was never going to stay in parliament forever, and I think has worked to bring in more Maori GP MPs from low income communities. She probably wasn’t intending to stay in parliament that much longer.

      Her stand on poverty and for beneficiaries is way more important than her political future, and demonstrates moral leadership.

      • Rae 8.2.1

        I agree on your last point but she is just going to constantly be down-cried now. My view is not formed by whether or not I think she is on the right track, it is whether or not she, from here on in, is able to get traction.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.3

      How many Green MPs do you suppose have smoked weed? If they admitted to that would you be calling for their heads too?

      What Psycho Milt said at 6.3.1.1.2 above.

    • yes reya your pint is noted

    • Sabine 8.5

      no she does not.

      she absolutly has no more reason to go then Little had.

      if people want to vote for a shiney object cause they can’t be arsed seeing what is going on, checking who has the best policies to offer, and voting accordingly then they get what hey get.

      Last time they got John Key – look what a nice shiney object, replaced by dullard welfare fraud Bill English with his 950$ shoes ultimative Welfare Queen Paula Bennett.

      Meteria Turei does not ‘have’ to go.

    • KJT 8.6

      Turei admitting to being human. While at the same time, trying to ensure mothers are not in the same situation in the future. Makes me more likely to vote for her.

    • Meteria Turei will have to go, she threatens the credibility of all Green MPs – rightly OR wrongly.

      Nope, her leaving will prove that the RWNJs who have been attacking her and trying to ignore the issue that she raised will have won.

      And we simply cannot have that.

  9. Matiri 9

    Andrew Geddes on the legal implications of Turei’s electoral enrolment. Seems to be relatively minor.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201853534/turei-likely-broke-the-law-law-professor

    • Carolyn_nth 9.1

      Geddis says Turei ‘likely’ broke the law prosecution is unlikely. It was the kind of stupid thing 23 year olds do.

      “The person Turei voted for” got about 100 or so votes.

  10. Many years ago, a poor, young Maori solo mum gave a false address – get stuck in to her, guys!

    • RedLogix 10.1

      Exactly. Hardly crime of the century and in practical terms no different to all the kiwis voting from overseas who haven’t lived in the electorate they’re registered in for ages.

      Besides this is why I’m so keen on 24/7/365 recording of everything, everyone says and does their entire life, from birth onward. That way we can all crawl back through the public records parsing and judging to our tiny little hearts content. What fun! /sarc

    • pop 10.2

      Many years ago, a poor, young Pakeha man stole a baby name for a passport (and resigned from parliament) – get stuck into him, guys! See the difference?

      • marty mars 10.2.1

        yep big difference – thank goodness that scum sucker isn’t in parliament anymore – now he slithers around the bog like an unruly shit snake.

  11. DH 11

    It’s getting a bit shrill in here, too many people being precious. I’ll bet all those slagging off Metira broke the law themselves when they were young. It’s what the young do.

    What harm did she do, she still used only her one vote. Political parties were notorious for changing electoral boundaries and other dirty tricks to boost their chances, why is Turei being held to a higher standard than our so-called peers?

    • RedLogix & DH – indeed. As for so-called Green supporters saying Metiria will “have to go” – back to ACT you turncoats! As if the party that champions the disadvantaged would turn on one of its own for her actions at a time when she was disadvantaged! Your green is so pale it’s yellow!
      🙂

    • RedLogix 11.2

      I strongly suspect quite a lot of people don’t bother moving electorates for one reason or another. Especially if they’re flatting, transient, have family still living there, maybe have property there, or intend to move back to the old electorate at some point in the future.

      It’s still just one vote.

    • mary_a 11.3

      @ DH (11) … Here here. Agree 100%

  12. roy cartland 12

    She must be the first poli ever to claim she was living somewhere when she wasn’t.

    https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/double-dipping-ministers-face-scrutiny-107004

    • Part of that article is worth quoting here, seeing as the credibility of current candidates for government leadership has been raised:

      Mr English, whose circumstances sparked the media investigations into ministerial housing, is still being questioned by reporters.

      Mr English claims about $1000 a week to live in his own home in Wellington. It is owned by a family trust and the title is in the name of his wife, Mary.

      The New Zealand Herald reported today the lease back arrangement has enabled Mr English to get more than the $24,000 he would otherwise have been limited to — likely to be over $47,000 this year. The value of the lease was based on an independent valuation.

      The previous practice of Internal Affairs was to limit out-of-town ministers living in their own Wellington properties to the $24,000 maximum of an ordinary MP.

      A day after the May 28 Budget, a new rule on ministerial housing was gazetted stipulating that an out-of-town minister who did not take up an official residence was effectively limited to $24,000.

      Mr English’s spokesman told the newspaper that because the house had already been designated an official residence, the new rule did not apply to him.

      Apparently you can blatantly rip the taxpayer off for tens of thousands of dollars out of pure greed and still become Prime Minister, as long as you’re not poor.

      • Apparently you can blatantly rip the taxpayer off for tens of thousands of dollars out of pure greed and still become Prime Minister, as long as you’re not poor.

        Or fighting for the poor.

      • AB 12.1.2

        Yep – and at the time he would have been on $250k a year and a wife who as a GP would also have been on a good income. Total household income probably approaching $0.5 million per year and he still goes and gouges a bit more.
        Psychopathic greed barely describes it – gouging more in housing allowance than many people actually earn in a 40 hour week of useful productive work. Bill doesn’t even do useful work, just parrots discredited economic dogma,
        But let’s kick the Maori sheila eh?

  13. ianmac 13

    Meteria may be on 9 to Noon after 10am today.

    • Carolyn_nth 13.1

      And she fronts up to RNZ when under scrutiny. Not like that…. erm…. the other guy…. whatsisname…. who was gone when the shit started to fly in his direction – he once was Nat leader and PM.

  14. Bearded Git 14

    Jacinda on 9 to Noon now

  15. katipo 15

    …poverty, itself, hurts our ability to make decisions about school, finances, and life, imposing a mental burden similar to losing 13 IQ points.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/

    Parliament needs representation from people like Meteria Turei, a solo mum who’s been through rough times and is open & honest about it despite how embarrassing it is to talk about it. Contrast this with the plethora of arrogant entitled MPs unwilling to answer or being tricky about questions put to them.

  16. Delia 16

    Shame the Minister ofHealth cannot front up like Metiria, where is he and those problems are far bigger than any the Greens have got.

  17. Shona 17

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11898744
    And Now Labour are going to pull the rug out from under her! Assholes! But then that’s Labour isn’t it? Just a bunch of power hungry self serving neo liberal scumbags.

    • Alan 17.1

      ah, the unity of the left, wonderful, just the sort of comment that gives swing voters confidence

    • BM 17.2

      Watch Labour try and use Davis to do all the dirty work, don’t want Princess Jacinda getting splattered.

      • McGrath 17.2.1

        Princess Jacinda needs to kick the Greens to touch. Currently it’s “buy Labour and get a benefit & electoral fraudster for free”. Metiria’s confessions may please the hard core, but it will turn off others.

        • BM 17.2.1.1

          Turei is going nowhere she’s the Greens golden child and has huge SJW support.

          Labour will try and put pressure on the Greens via Davis but they’ll hit a brick wall with Turei.

          It’s going to be the Princess vs the Golden Child and I don’t think there’s going to be a winner.

          • McGrath 17.2.1.1.1

            If I were a National Party strategist, I’d be sacrificing extra-hard to the neo-liberal Gods that she stays as long as possible. Turei’s is the Left’s weak link. Turei’s criminal past will be much flaunted by National in the same vein as “buy Labour get Kim Dot-Con” in 2014.

            • marty mars 17.2.1.1.1.1

              the chorus of monKeys has started – oh oh ah ah they screech – listen to us they implore as they alanbmmcgrath it to bits – sad little righties lol

              ” if I was a … I’d hammer in the morning, all over this land…”

              • Stuart Munro

                In fact Jacinda’s best move would be to endorse Metiria – vicious scapegoating plays well to a right wing audience – the left prefer solidarity.

                • McGrath

                  Would be electoral suicide endorsing a fraudster. She’s now a distraction and should go. The evil righties hope and pray Jacinda follows your sage advice though as Metiria’s an excellent target 🎯

                  • Stuart Munro

                    Key did it to Banks – so really all you have is a double standard here.

                    • McGrath

                      Banks was found innocent despite Metiria going all into him about truth and honesty. Ironically she’s now hoisted on her own petard.

            • Draco T Bastard 17.2.1.1.1.2

              And what’s your take on the criminal past of the present government?

              • McGrath

                They’ve not been charged with anything so all is well on that score. English and his 450-odd text messages will blow back on him though.

                • They’ve not been charged with anything so all is well on that score.

                  Neither has Metiria.

                  English and his 450-odd text messages will blow back on him though.

                  Yep, definitely looking like an Obstruction of Justice charge and seven years of imprisonment there (You know, for being held to the highest possible standards).

                  • McGrath

                    If Bill is really that much of an ass to stalk someone with 450-odd texts over a dispute, then he deserves all he gets

            • McFlock 17.2.1.1.1.3

              When blinglish was double-dipping his accommodation supplement, where was he registered to vote?

      • Gabby 17.2.2

        If they have any sense.

    • And Now Labour are going to pull the rug out from under her!

      Pull what rug out from under her? The MoU doesn’t require Labour to endorse any Green policies or any actions by Green MPs. In fact, given that Labour’s support base includes some fairly conservative people, it would be best if they do distance themselves from this and let the Greens do the heavy lifting.

  18. david 18

    Metiria should just come clean. Declare who the father of her child is. The flatmates she was living with. Where she was living.
    What is exactly did she lie about. Understanding and forgiveness by some will come after that.

    Giving partial answers from the leader of political party and possible Prime Minister is not good enough.

    Truth will set you free 🙂

    • savenz 18.1

      Yes David, she should line up after Bennett has her interview and investigation and after Bill English’s investigation into the lies he told about the Todd Barclay affair and why his wife now has a contract instead of lifeline.

    • Muttonbird 18.2

      Yep. She needs to make a statement about her situation back then to the best of her recollection which isn’t always easy when a person is transient and in and out of different flats. That’s a whole other discussion about the poor quality of life for tenants in this country.

      Then WINZ and her representatives need to come up with a figure quickly which she needs to pay back just like all the other people in her situation have to and then the matter will be closed.

      The different electorate thing is nothing, just RWNJs seeing if anything else sticks.

      • BM 18.2.1

        Or cop a conviction if what she’s done warrants it.

        • RedLogix 18.2.1.1

          Nope. Lot’s of people vote in electorates they’re not technically resident in at the time and no-one is ever prosecuted because it just doesn’t get over any public interest threshold to do so.

          Have you ever driven at 51k in a 50k zone? And if so when are you going to hand yourself over to the courts to be convicted to the maximum extent of the law, and resign your job?

          Otherwise … faux outrage.

    • Giving partial answers from the leader of political party and possible Prime Minister is not good enough.

      It’s been good enough for possible and actual Prime Ministers as long as the position of Prime Minister has existed. Turei’s already been more up-front than either the current (“I’ve nothing more to add”) or the previous (“That wasn’t in my role as Prime Minister”) incumbent.

    • weka 18.4

      “Metiria should just come clean. Declare who the father of her child is. The flatmates she was living with. Where she was living.”

      See this is interesting. Because the name of the father is utterly irrelevant. WINZ may want to know but it’s no-one else’s business. Likewise the names of the flatmates she was living with. Why would you want to know that or have those details made public?

      This is the shit that beneficiaries have to deal with all the time. The idea that their lives are not their own, that they don’t have the same rights as other people. WINZ operates a system that intentionally stigmatises and demeans people, and what you are calling for plays into that exactly. I’m going to assume that is intentional on your part. It’s classist to the core and that’s the fight going on currently.

      • Sabine 18.4.1

        +1

      • KJT 18.4.2

        Hopefully I am not the only one who thinks WINZ poking into adults sex lives is creepy and breaching privacy.

        The sooner we get a universal income for mothers, the better.

        • RedLogix 18.4.2.1

          This. So much this.

          I know Gareth Morgan isn’t everyone’s cuppa tea around here … but TOP really are the only party taking the Universal Income idea seriously.

          • KJT 18.4.2.1.1

            I would like to see Greens and TOP with most of the vote.

            Especially as TOP is advocating so many of the things the Greens would like to do, if the electorate was ready.

            Don’t forget we had a universal income for mothers with children, the family benefit, in the past. No reason why we can’t still do it. Except. “Tax cuts”.

            • weka 18.4.2.1.1.1

              TOP’s UBI is going to harm beneficiaries and poor people. They’re not the right people to design one for NZ. Way better to wait until we have L/G govt and then have a nationwide discussion on what a UBI is, what it is for, and how we should do it. Having a top-down designed on by an economist who doesn’t value social security is going to give a clayton’s UBI that is an economic tool, not about support for all people.

              There’s nothing that TOP are proposing currently that can’t be done better via the Greens welfare policy.

              • RedLogix

                TOP’s UBI is going to harm beneficiaries and poor people.

                I’ll explain one last time: the combination of a UBI, income tax cuts, and residual targeting tops ups will ensure ALL beneficiaries and poor people will be better off.

                Get that … better off. The exact fucking opposite of what you are saying. The ONLY people worse off will be the top 20%, ie people like myself with significant assets.

                Way better to wait until we have L/G govt and then have a nationwide discussion on what a UBI is

                We’ve been waiting for a UBI policy from the Greens for years and still nothing more than vague waffle that they’ll have a think about it. No commitment, no political capital no nothing. And the last time Labour mentioned it, they backed away at a million miles an hour.

                Having a top-down designed on by an economist who doesn’t value social security

                Welfare is fundamentally an economic issue; tax reform and a UBI can be no more designed without reference to economics than a sailboat can be designed with no understanding of the ocean.

                And given the Morgan Foundation’s demonstrable track record of social development … the idea that he doesn’t ‘value social security’ is a risible nonsense. It’s a smear really.

                • weka

                  I can see why you like TOP’s policy. Welfare isn’t fundamentally an economic issues, it’s a wellbeing issue. Which is why it needs to be designed from the needs of the most vulnerable.

                  I haven’t said that a UBI should be designed without reference to economics, and I’ve pointed this out to your before, so enough with the false argument and binary thinking. Economics is a subset of society not the other way around.

                  As I’ve explained, in detail, in the past, TOP’s policies have significant flaws in them that would leave some vulnerable people worse off. You asserting that that’s not true doesn’t make it so. I know you like the policy, but your inability to engage with the criticisms of the design just makes it look ideological.

                  “And given the Morgan Foundation’s demonstrable track record of social development … the idea that he doesn’t ‘value social security’ is a risible nonsense. It’s a smear really.”

                  That he has a social conscience doesn’t mean he gets welfare. TOP’s policy is clueless about the supplementary benefits for instance, and this is why they couldn’t answer the questions about them earlier in the year.

                  The Big Kahuna, still Morgan and TOP’s main reference point, opening admits that some beneficiaries will be worse off (although admittedly it looks like there are big discrepancies between TOP’s current partial UBI policies and TBK, good luck with getting some clarity on that). And then goes on to vaguely point at their solutions for how beneficiaries can sort that out for themselves.

                  And that’s not even getting to the underlying values, which lead them to design a youth UBI that gives extra money to wage earners but not beneficiaries who can’t work.

                  It’s all the work of people who don’t understand welfare, what it’s for, or what vulnerable people need and therefore are designing systems that have big fucking holes in them. Best they can say is that it’s better than what we have now, but that’s not good enough when the whole thing needs to be mended.

                  • RedLogix

                    Yet you continue with the idea that just because Morgan is an economist this automatically disqualifies him to design social policy. In fact the guy has been working in the public policy field all his life. He’s probably more qualified than all of us put together.

                    The Big Kahuna is a book written some years ago; it’s not the same thing as TOP policy design. One was a starting point, the other an achievable political position that has evolved over time.

                    TOP has made it clear that a full UBI across the entire population is not immediately achievable. It has to be carefully transitioned in. We already have a UBI for the elderly, the next step has been to extend it to 18 -23 yr olds. Then perhaps a Child UBI would be a next logical step.

                    Then you get to work on tax reform. Get your CCT asset tax in place. Start taxing overseas companies properly as if they’re NZ resident. Consider a FTT, close all the loopholes that let big capital get away with massive tax fraud.

                    Then you can cut income tax by about 30% overall and start extending the UBI across more broad categories of people. All ‘non-working’ parents for example.

                    And they’ve made it clear that a UBI would always be a minimum payment, and beneficiaries would be topped up with targeted payments to at least their current levels. And given the way WINZ currently fucks people about with stand-downs and the like, it’s entirely possible that with their UBI portion of their income guaranteed as a right, that over the course of time their total income could be higher.

                    That’s real social security. Not the ‘maybe if we think you’re deserving enough’ version we have now.

                    As I’ve explained, in detail, in the past, TOP’s policies have significant flaws in them that would leave some vulnerable people worse off.

                    And since that discussion some time back, it’s clear that your objections have been answered. Bottom line … the bottom 80% are better off.

                    And that’s not even getting to the underlying values, which lead them to design a youth UBI that gives extra money to wage earners but not beneficiaries who can’t work.

                    Really that’s the whole point of a UBI. It’s universal. If you don’t get that, then you’ve really walked away from the whole idea and locked yourself into the current targeted system which simply cannot be mended.

                    • weka

                      “Yet you continue with the idea that just because Morgan is an economist this automatically disqualifies him to design social policy.”

                      Not at all. I think there are lots of economists with better understandings of welfare that could be involved in designing a UBI. Morgan too if he got how to share power instead of imposing his vision.

                      “The Big Kahuna is a book written some years ago; it’s not the same thing as TOP policy design. One was a starting point, the other an achievable political position that has evolved over time.”

                      And yet both Morgan and TOP actively refer people back to it when asked about their UBI.

                      “And they’ve made it clear that a UBI would always be a minimum payment, and beneficiaries would be topped up with targeted payments to at least their current levels.”

                      No, they haven’t. Initially Morgan had no plan for top ups apart from shoving ill people off onto Health. They’ve been changing their position on this over time, but they still have no actual policy on it.

                      “And that’s not even getting to the underlying values, which lead them to design a youth UBI that gives extra money to wage earners but not beneficiaries who can’t work.”

                      Really that’s the whole point of a UBI. It’s universal. If you don’t get that, then you’ve really walked away from the whole idea and locked yourself into the current targeted system which simply cannot be mended.

                      Morgan has designed a UBI around paid work. Which is why the TOP Youth UBI is discriminatory against people who can’t work. A 22 yr old with a disability gets the same income as they’re on now, which we know keeps them in poverty. An abled body one gets $10K on top of what they’re already earning in a job. If TOP/Morgan understood welfare and how to mend it, then they would have attended to the youth with disability at the same time as the rest of youth. But they didn’t. They want to design a system that leaves disabled people until later, but with no clear indication of what should be done for them. At best they’re an after thought.

                      I think lots of welfare can be mended and it’s a pre-requisite for a proper UBI. If welfare doesn’t get mended then people who can’t work will be structurally discriminated against and still have to deal with a fucking shitty arse govt and society that doesn’t know how to treat them like everyone else. Instead we should lift all that punitive shit out of WINZ immediately, and then look properly at what people’s actual needs are. Everyone’s needs.

                    • RedLogix

                      No, they haven’t. Initially Morgan had no plan for top ups apart from shoving ill people off onto Health. They’ve been changing their position on this over time, but they still have no actual policy on it.

                      You make it sound like improving access to better health care for ill people is a bad thing. Jeeze you’re hard to please. Still if you care to actually look:

                      Over time we will continue to align the tax and welfare regime with the needs of a society confronting increasing inequality, the casualization of paid work, and the escalating health costs of an ageing population. This will be achieved by extending the UBI across the whole population and rolling back but not eradicating the need for targeted support.

                      http://www.top.org.nz/top7

                      Try and read it as a whole. Look at the combined social impact across youth, young families, housing, rents, childcare, the absence of WINZ bullying and eventually lower income taxes. It clearly states what TOP’s vision is, and why they believe in it.

                      If you’re looking for a fully formed, uber-detailed policy that’s ready to roll-out tomorrow your going to be disappointed. All achievable policy is an evolution, it’s about negotiation and compromise across the political spectrum. The entire rationale of TOP was never to be government, but to work with the established parties to achieve a fresh approach.

                      Really this thread is about the Greens and we’ve gone way off topic. I’d be over the moon for the them to be in government. But I hope they prove easier to work with than you’re demonstrating here.

                      Historically the fight for targeted welfare was long and bitter, and for all it’s limitations we would never turn the clock back on it. The next battle is about Universal welfare … the idea we all have a right to a decent life simply as citizens of New Zealand.

                    • TOP has made it clear that a full UBI across the entire population is not immediately achievable.

                      Actually, it can be and if it is it’s more likely to survive a change in government.

                      Then you get to work on tax reform.

                      Nope, banking system first. Have to make it so that the private banks can’t create money and that only Reserve Currency is in use and ensure that only reserve currency is used for exchange of NZ$.

                      I’d go Cashless as well.

                      And they’ve made it clear that a UBI would always be a minimum payment, and beneficiaries would be topped up with targeted payments to at least their current levels.

                      Simpler just to have a liveable rate of $400 per week and top ups for those that need it.

                      And, yes, we can afford it but it does come back to that banking system change that’s needed.

                  • Welfare isn’t fundamentally an economic issues, it’s a wellbeing issue.

                    No, welfare and well-being really are an economics issue. We need viable economics to be able to support welfare and well-being for everyone.

                    TOP’s policy is clueless about the supplementary benefits for instance, and this is why they couldn’t answer the questions about them earlier in the year.

                    TOP’s real problems are that they’re trying to keep within the bounds of the failed economics and banking paradigm that’s failed so often over the last few centuries. They haven’t figured out yet that it’s the capitalist system that fails every time.

            • RedLogix 18.4.2.1.1.2

              No I haven’t forgotten the “Child Benefit” at all. I clearly recall my mother grumbling when it was finally axed.

          • Jeremy 18.4.2.1.2

            Don’t forget the Democrats for Social Credit

    • Chess Player 18.5

      It’s common knowledge who the father is.
      The question is why did he not step up when his kid needed him to, given the financial resources available.

  19. savenz 19

    Go Metiria! Now that she is going up in the polls, the media is out to harass her even more! Hope she stands firm against dirty politics and neoliberals, because it looks like 15% of voters want Metiria in parliament!

    • savenz 19.1

      If beneficiaries are given a $180 pay rise it will eventually push up wages and conditions – unless the immigration rout continues.

  20. mlpc 20

    What’s all this apologising for Turei about?

    She committed a complex and sustained fraud.

    And even now she is dissembling about it by talking about the money she stole as an “over-payment”,

    She should resign now and face prosecution for her dishonesty. It’s what she demanded of John Banks.

    • savenz 20.1

      But no investigation over Paula Bennett?

      • BM 20.1.1

        Why should there be an investigation into Paula Bennett, she’s done nothing wrong.

        • Stuart Munro 20.1.1.1

          And you know this how?

          • BM 20.1.1.1.1

            Where’s the evidence?, Turei confessed.
            This stuff about Bennet is just the ramblings of some deranged clown on facebook.

            • Stuart Munro 20.1.1.1.1.1

              A ‘deranged clown’ who apparently lived with her or in close proximity for several years. There’s a whole community out there who remember all about Paula, and her peccadillos seem to be a little more actionable than LARPing.

            • savenz 20.1.1.1.1.2

              if it was just ramblings then why does Paula need to call in the big lawyers to stop the guy giving his version to the public?

        • KJT 20.1.1.2

          I don’t care what she did in the past. Nor do I care if a politician has been in jail or whatever. People change.

          What she is doing now is pulling up the ladder she climbed, to ensure no one else can.

          Not many of us can claim we never broke the law in our teens and twenties.

          Even if it was just underage drinking, burning couches and hooning around in cars?

          I know some people who are in senior and useful positions now who would never have passed a drug test in their teens,

          • Muttonbird 20.1.1.2.1

            +1. Her biggest crime is that she’s a ladder-kicker who has removed for others all the pathways that she used to get to a position of power.

        • Rae 20.1.1.3

          I imagine someone somewhere is ferreting around trying to find something to validate claims made about her. Much as I find her ingratiating and false, you cannot convict without evidence, and at this point in time, nothing seems to be strong enough. You might have to wait it out.

      • mlpc 20.1.2

        Deflection.
        The issue here is the Greens and Turei.
        If there was a case against Paula Bennett, I’m sure journalists and opposition politicians would have broadcast it by now.

        • dukeofurl 20.1.2.1

          They will be .
          habitation indexes at the ready

        • KJT 20.1.2.2

          Much as i think Pullya s disgusting, because of the hypocrisy of her current actions.
          The game of resurrecting past indiscretions, which are unlikely to be repeated, just ensures we have nobody who has learned life’s lessons in politics.

          Key’s and English’s unethical past should be public, because it informs us about their current thievery. They are neither sorry, nor likely to desist.

        • Gabby 20.1.2.3

          She’ll be lawyered up, and they’ll be careful.

      • mary_a 20.1.3

        @ SAVENZ (20.1) … I’d say there’s a good chance Bennett’s welfare info has been cleared from the system by now, to have conveniently gone missing!

    • Apologising? We’re just shielding her from mean-spirited, spiteful attacks from the likes of you.

      • mlpc 20.2.1

        To quote Helen Clark: “diddums”

        Politics is a rough game for grown-ups, and Turei showed no grace when she was after John Banks’ blood.

        She needs to stop snivelling.

        More to the point, Labour needs to dump the MoU right now. The Greens were always going to be the sole beneficiary, and they’re poison.

        • Robert Guyton 20.2.1.1

          Metiria is certainly not “snivelling”, as mlpc claims and it’s that which inflames people like mlpc the most: she’s so not-servile!! How dare she front-foot this stuff! Our people always do the Right thing: prevaricate, obfuscate, “forget” mis-remember; Turei’s not playing the game!!

  21. savenz 21

    Well worked Strategy of the Natz, divide the opposition.

    Front page of granny “Labour to assess whether Metiria Turei’s electoral revelations could damage party”.

    Yep, nothing about the Natz being concerned. It’s all about Labour and Green issues.

    Seriously if Labour and NZ First (with similar tactics from dirty politics) fall for this tactic again this election, you have to wonder. Natz are tired and have 47% of votes to be won.

    • mlpc 21.1

      Crikey.

      I know the Nats have a reputation for dirty tricks, but it was Turei herself who created this situation.

      Journalists are like sharks, as we have seen with Andrew Little. Once they smell blood, they go into a feeding frenzy.

      Turei should have known that they would not stop attacking after she admitted her fraud.

      I would bet there is a fair bit more to come to light in this case. And it won’t look good for Turei.

      • weka 21.1.1

        NZ’s basher culture.

      • AB 21.1.2

        “Journalists are like sharks, as we have seen with Andrew Little”
        But curiously we haven’t see it with English, Collins or Key – Weird eh?

        • mlpc 21.1.2.1

          If English acknowledged a lack of confidence in himself, like Little did, you can be sure that the journalists would be in for the kill.

    • Planet Earth 21.2

      Did you read Kelvin Davis’ words? Nothing to do with the Natz, you’re jumping at shadows.

      • KJT 21.2.1

        Kelvin Davis has just reinforced my initial impression, that he is yet another entitled, establishment twit.

        Squeeky clean?

        Like the NACT’s.

    • NewsFlash 21.3

      Well worked Strategy of the Natz, divide the opposition.

      Reading this column, I’d say they’ve succeeded

  22. mike appleby 22

    Appalled at the story in The Herald – leading it with a video of Mike Hosking’s opinion piece before you even read the story. This must be worthy of a press complaint.

  23. KJT 23

    Interesting to note all the condemnation from people, who have never done anything wrong? while they were young and stupid.

    like the creepy condemnation of solo mothers, by old guys that spent their youth trying, and failing, to get into girls pants.

    Or. of drug taking youth, by people who would never have kept their jobs if the same rules applied years ago.

    The only reason why i didn’t lie while on a sickness benefit, to feed my kids, is that I had a lot of money to start with.

    Some people cannot see the moral difference between something done by the poor, young and desperate, Turei, out of necessity, and simple greed by someone who already has plenty. Key, English.

    Or. Someone who spends their life afterwards, making sure that no one has to be that desperate again vs someone who escapes from that situation due to State help, then spends her life ensuring no one can escape poverty, and threaten the comfortable wealthy, ever again!

    Honesty vs hypocrisy.

    • BM 23.1

      If you had lots of money why did you need to be on the sickness benefit?

      • marty mars 23.1.1

        quick dob him in jimmy – 0800snitch – I’m sure you know the number being all upright and law abiding and all.

        • Gabby 23.1.1.1

          Us cool kids scoff at the law marty, right on.

          • marty mars 23.1.1.1.1

            yep we ain’t afraid of no ghost

          • KJT 23.1.1.1.2

            I followed the law to the letter, mate.

            But. If my kids were hungry or in need of care i would do whatever it takes.

            You were allowed to keep assets when on a sickness benefit.

            Something which has now probably been removed, with sickness benefit becoming the comically named, jobseekers.

            Contrast the treatment of ill people with ACC. Where you get 80% of your last years income without asset testing.

            Which makes being ill a poverty trap, which many can never climb out of.

            Whereas those on ACC, generally resume back in their old job.

      • KJT 23.1.2

        Because I had assets, but no income. Dimwit.

        • AB 23.1.2.1

          Of course KJT – and any income from those assets would have been counted. Thing is – BM wants to drive people into total penury (liquidate assets, spend all the cash) rather than have to support them financially in any way. He is a sort of diseased ‘man alone’.

  24. Stuart Munro 24

    I’m impressed with Metiria. I wasn’t for years – got involved with the Greens through Rod & Jeanette and gafiated through being too much abroad. But, she took the lead on a very real issue, and is handling it with impressive maturity. An issue that should have been a Labour priority.

    It seems that she will be the focus of the RWNJ spittle frenzy that they dare not direct at Jacinda. Not a good look, if one steps back a pace, but utterly consistent with the crude bullying that is all the Right have to distract from their unremitting failure in government.

  25. 44 south 25

    From this angry old man’s perspective the simple fact is, the woman is incompetent and still making bad decisions all these years later.
    She should have had ten grand labelled “over payment/ re payment” sitting in a trust account before she even opened her mouth.
    She is a liability,and she should go.

    • mary_a 25.1

      @ 44 south (25) … How do you know she hasn’t?

      Obviously she is intending paying what she owes back to WINZ, a point she has made clear and repeated on several occasions since she admitted her misdemeanour, so I’d say there’s some money there to cover her debt, wouldn’t you?

      • Chess Player 25.1.1

        It’s not obvious at all, actually.
        First, she said she had claimed more than entitled to.
        Then, when pushed, she said if there was an enquiry, she would repay what was required.
        If she’d just contacted WINZ and come clean and presented a repayment cheque including interest, then made her big announcement, she could have avoided a lot of this mess.
        Whether she just didn’t think things through, or whether she has been troughing it for so long that it didn’t occur to her what the consequences might be, who knows.

    • marty mars 26.1

      oh dear – might be time for a change there too theybethinking

      edit – watching without the sound – looks tough for Metiria – kia kaha

    • Karen 26.2

      Thanks for the link, Weka. Just finished watching and it has confirmed a Green party vote for me this election.

      Also impressed by James Shaw’s support for Metiria throughout that press conference.

      • weka 26.2.1

        He was good. I’m going to see if I can pull out bits of the video, because people really need to start listening to what Shaw actually says and get over the fact that he’s a nerd in a suit.

    • mary_a 26.3

      Hi Weka

      I don’t do Facebook so can’t get the link. Is there somewhere else I could possibly view the press conference? Thanks.

      • weka 26.3.1

        Does this link work? If not, can you describe what you see? There might need to be something to click on to get past a sign up popup. Afaik you don’t need a FB account to view this video.

  26. Sable 27

    The healthcare and so called welfare system are geared in such a way as to often force people be economic with facts simply so they can get the help they desperately need.

    The witch hunt into the Greens co-leader disgusts me and its interesting timing too. I wont be voting Green but they have my unqualified support on this one.

  27. mike appleby 28

    Let me see, Metiria did her technically rule breaking decision as a prank as a young 23 year old. Many years later, ooo look at this 2005 Herald story regarding one John Key.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/helensville/news/article.cfm?l_id=400&objectid=10008084

    ….Mr Key and his wife, Bronagh, are listed in electoral rolls for 2002, 2003, and 2004 as “residing” at a Waimauku address in the Helensville electorate, but have never lived there.

    Hmmmm

    • greywarshark 28.1

      Thanks mike a
      If that is true it is a useful thing to keep in mind when the wrath of small gods is being unleashed.

  28. Whispering Kate 29

    The hypocrisy from some of the commentators on this subject is beyond belief. There are very few of us alive in this country who haven’t transgressed in some way in their lives. Adults at the age Metirea Turei was, were doing some of the most stupid things all the time and there are not many us of older people who do not look back and cringe at the stupidity of the acts we did.

    The fact that our emcumbent Government are filled with all sorts of people who have likely done things as bad if not worse than Metirea in their lives (and they know who they are) is reason enough to give the woman some slack. What she did is lame in comparision to the rorting and shabby antics going on, on a daily basis. Out and out dirty stuff which seems to be okay to the voters of this Government. Shame on them but then, they are a selfish venal bunch and to be honest don’t have a lot going on in the cerebral department either.

    Why don’t these critics try and live for a month on the benefit without the comfort of their home, only a cold leaking dump to live in (and without any fall back if they run short of cash) and then come back and tell this site how they coped.

    We are each and every one of us a heart beat away from losing our homes, cash running out on the credit, laid off from shitty jobs, taken sick and laid off – it pays to remember that often.

    • marie 29.1

      +100

    • Drowsy M. Kram 29.2

      Well said; Metirea has conducted herself admirably – so courageous. The false virtue of those commentators you mention is unsuprising – imbued with an ugly mix of fear and hypocrisy, they are rotten to the core.

  29. greywarshark 30

    T Shirt for Metiria. One on the way I hope. If not get it designed and out toot suite.

  30. Sanctuary 31

    Cripes, Jacinda just punted Metiria into touch in no uncertain terms.

    Decisive action, the voters lap it up you know.

  31. mosa 32

    After campaigning so well and courageously in support of the poor and disadvantaged Metira and her talent ,compassion and commitment won’t be serving as a minister when we need her the most. BUGGER !

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    3 days ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    4 days ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    4 days ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago