Was not naming father fraud too?

July 22, 2017

Metiria Turei admitted she didn’t admit to having flatmates in order to collect a bigger benefit payment.

Rodney Hide at the NBR and Whaleoil have past quotes which show she didn’t name the baby’s father when she not only knew who he was but ensured he maintained a relationship with his daughter and took money from him and his family.

Is that fraud too?

After earlier saying she’d pay back the money if WINZ asked her to, she’s now decided she’ll pay it back anyway.

Will it be just the extra accommodation payment she got or should she, or the child’s father, also be paying what he would have been liable for had she named him and will anyone be looking into whether the help she got from him, his family and her own should have been declared too?

Life on a benefit wasn’t easy back then and isn’t now.

But a lot of people managed then and manage now without committing fraud.

A lot more people work hard to pay taxes.

Most accept the necessity of doing so to help people in genuine need, a lot fewer are happy to support someone who’s getting more than they’re entitled to through fraud.

Advertisements

Knowing right from wrong

July 17, 2017

Green co-leader Metiria Turei has admitted she is a fraudster:

. . I was one of those women, who you hear people complain about on talkback radio.
Because despite all the help I was getting, I could not afford to live, study and keep my baby well without keeping a secret from WINZ.
Like many families who rely on a benefit, Piu and I moved around a lot when she was little.
We lived in five different flats with various people.
In three of those flats, I had extra flatmates, who paid rent, but I didn’t tell WINZ. I didn’t dare.
I knew that if I told the truth about how many people were living in the house my benefit would be cut.
And I knew that my baby and I could not get by on what was left.
This is what being on the benefit did to me – it made me poor and it made me lie.
It was a stressful, terrifying experience. . .

 

Turei isn’t the first MP to admit to benefit fraud, but this one paid it back:

Parliament is a house of representatives.

I doubt there is any MP who has not done something wrong, just as I doubt any of us who aren’t MPs could put our hands on our hearts and say we’ve never done anything wrong.

Doing wrong is one thing, not knowing right from wrong is quite another.

Turei has compounded the wrong of benefit fraud with no attempt to put it right and with the attempted justification: it made me poor and it made me lie.

What does it say about the morals of the woman who wants to be a Minister?

What does it say to people, especially those on low incomes, who work hard and pay taxes to support people in genuine need?

What does that say to all the people on benefits, all of whom are poor, many of whom don’t have the support Turei had from her baby’s father, her own family and his, and most of whom manage without lying?

It’s a similar message to the one in the policy she announced of removing the penalties and obligations on beneficiaries including the requirement for drug testing and sanctions for not actively seeking work.

Most beneficiaries want to get off benefits, many need help to do so which might include a carrot and a few need a stick.

Without sanctions, fathers of children whose mothers are on benefits will have to pay nothing, people who don’t try to get work-ready and actively seek work will be left to languish on benefits and everyone else will pay directly through taxes and indirectly through the social problems including poor health, low education achievement and higher crime that benefit dependency promotes.

Quote of the day on this goes to Act MP David Seymour:

Green Party policy: If you stay at home and smoke drugs all day you get a pay rise. If you get up and go to work you get a tax hike.

Benefits should help those in genuine need.

Some beneficiaries will need permanent help but for most taxpayer help should be a temporary bridge to help them from dependence to independence.

 


Green’s red roots showing

August 9, 2016

Does the Labour Party know about the Green’s proposal to socialise all health services?:

. . . Green Party health spokesman Kevin Hague said he would get rid of private healthcare altogether. 

“I think that distorts the health sector completely and produces a two-tier system.” . . .

This not only shows the Green’s red roots, it also shows a woeful understanding of how the health sector works.

Medical specialists usually work in both public and private hospitals. The work they do in private hospitals, paid for by individuals or insurance companies, takes pressure off public services.

ACC also uses private specialists to get people back to work sooner than if they had to go on public waiting lists.

But private healthcare isn’t just medical specialists in private hospitals. It’s general practitioners, dentists, orthodontists, optometrists, physiotherapists, radiologists, laboratories  . . .

Does Hague really think all these services should be publicly owned and funded?

The Memorandum of Understanding between Labour and the Green Party included a no surprises clause.

Last week Metiria Turei announced the desire to slash the value of houses by 50%. This week Hague is planning to socialise all health services.

I suspect both came as a surprise to their would-be coalition partner.


Price crashes and higher taxes don’t build houses

August 2, 2016

Green co-leader Metiria Turei’s suggestion of dropping house prices by 50% was described by Prime Minister John Key as ‘barking mad’.

It would make some houses less unaffordable but it wouldn’t build more houses which is the only way to solve the problem of too few houses for the number of people wanting to rent or buy.

Crashing prices, no matter how slowly it was done, would reduce existing homeowners’ equity.

That would only be a paper loss for people who had a low or no mortgage. They’d still have their homes they just wouldn’t be worth as much.

For people with large mortgages, whether they borrowed to buy their home, set up a business or to buy other things, a price crash could leave them with no equity at all, or worse still owing more than the value of what they owned.

If they were forced to sell their houses those properties would be more affordable for some people but the sellers would have nothing with which to buy another house. All that would be have been achieved would be previous owners losing to new owners with major damage to the economy and no increase in the supply of housing.

Greens are also keen on a capital gains tax.

I’m not opposed to that in principle, as long as it was comprehensive and other taxes were lowered so the net tax take remained much the same.

But capital gains taxes don’t build houses and in other countries which have them they have done nothing to make houses more affordable.

Meanwhile schools in Auckland are finding it difficult to recruit teachers.

A survey of Auckland’s primary schools paints a picture of severe teacher shortages across the city and at every school decile level.

The struggle to recruit teachers is being described as “a nightmare” by principals who blame it largely on the high cost of housing in the city. . . 

In a statement, the Ministry of Education told RNZ News that it met regularly with Auckland’s principals to respond to their concerns about teacher supply.

A range of potential solutions were being explored, but in the meantime the ministry was working to smooth the way for overseas teachers to work in New Zealand and helping schools which had hard to fill vacancies.

Diane Manners has talked through possible solution with ministry officials said they would help, but only around the edges.

She wanted greater urgency in dealing with the problem, especially with a growing population that will mean more children needing more teachers. . . 

One solution that won’t work is to get an Auckland differential in the pay scale.

Teachers are paid the same wherever they teach. Paying Auckland teachers more would help those who already own a house but it won’t increase the housing supply. What it will do is give teachers more to spend and therefore, like any other measure which increases buying power without addressing supply, further inflate prices.

The housing problem is simply one of supply and demand.

The solution is equally simple – increase supply and/or lower demand.

The easiest way to do that is to build more houses and for some people living in areas of high demand and low supply to move to areas where demand is lower and supply is higher.

That will get supply and demand back into kilter without the collateral damage which crashing prices and increasing taxes would inflict.

P.S.

A Cromwell man has come up with an affordable, albeit compact, answer to more affordable homes:

They are warm, quiet, easily moveable and cost a fraction of a regular house to buy and Cromwell’s master of small spaces, Darryl Taylor, reckons his tiny shipping container homes could help solve Central Otago’s temporary accommodation woes. 

Taylor does admit it requires a mental leap in many people’s thinking to see a big metal box as a desirable home but following much research and experimentation, he says his converted containers are as comfortable to live in as a regular house. . . 

The containers have a “warrant-of-fitness” and are all still cargo-worthy. . . 

Some people wanted new, others liked the rustic look, Taylor said.  Built inside a warehouse, they are issued with a code of compliance from the Central Otago District Council before they go on site.

Considerable research and trial and error had gone into fitting the units out so some details would remain trade secrets, Taylor says.  He had consulted experts in engineering and other fields to help perfect the conversions, particularly in relation to ventilation. Bernice is in charge of painting the units and the pair continue to fine-tuning the finishings.

“We can now fit out a twenty footer in around six weeks and they go out the door fully code compliant. There is no condensation, they’re all double-glazed, insulated and ventilated.  They actually exceed council requirements but you do still need a building consent for your foundations.”

Ship containers were already watertight, bulletproof and resistant to earthquakes and extreme weather.  Inside Taylor added sound-deadening insulation, wooden lining, tiny bedrooms, kitchens and bathrooms of all specifications.  Drop-down decking using an electric winch could be added, or normal decking built on, once the container was in place. . . 

Taylor says he sells the 6m containers for about $42,000 fully converted for small-space living.  

A 12m would cost closer to $75,000 and two this size can be bolted together to form a four bedroom home. . . 


Slower growth still growth

July 10, 2015

Chicken Little would feel right at home with opposition politicians and media who are wanting us to believe the sky is falling.

This season’s dairy payout was low and next season’s might not be much better but banks aren’t going to be forcing farmers out of business.

Providing farmers are prudent and work with their banks they’ll get through.

Dairying is a large part of the economy and those who service and supply farmers will find business tougher as farmers spend less, but the impact of that still won’t push us into the recession some of the gloomier forecasters would have us believe is coming.

Trans Tasman puts it into perspective:

“Complacency” is what Labour finance spokesman Grant Robertson called John Key’s attitude to the economy this week. His leader Andrew Little went further, saying NZ faces a “perfect storm” of economic bad news. Both called for the Govt to do something, although just what remained a bit vague, apart from a generalised call for more spending to stimulate the economy. Key’s “What? Me Worry?” persona can grate at times, but this is all a bit over-egged.

Much of the egging came from the media, of course, with broadcasters being the worst. One has come to expect a certain amount of arm-wavy economic illiteracy from TV news, but what was more surprising was hearing Radio NZ follow suit, discussing the economy as if a recession 
is imminent.

Essentially there is a buy-in to the Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei’s claim the Govt needs to “start spending again” to avoid a recession. It’s a statement which appears oblivious to the Govt loosening the fiscal purse strings in the May budget, and also of the fact no reputable economist thinks a recession is imminent. Rather, it is a slowdown from a bit more than 3% to probably around 2% growth in GDP.

This means both Treasury and the Reserve Bank’s most recent forecasts are wrong, and not in a minor way. The presumption of 3% GDP growth this year, and for the next two years, now looks just that – highly presumptuous.

But it is not a recession. Growth is still happening. It is just considerably slower than expected. Interest rates and the NZ dollar are adjusting – finally – to take account of this.

Growth may be slowly, but slow growth is better than no growth and still, thankfully, there’s no imminent danger of the sky falling.


Quote of the day

March 19, 2015

 At the end of the day I think the member actually does a disservice to the fantastic parents and caregivers out there, the overwhelming bulk of whom actually do provide their kids with breakfast and lunch. They do a damn good job, and the member should stop telling them that they do not. – John Key.

He was responding to questions from Metiria Turei about feeding children in schools.


Strike two

February 18, 2015

Labour has been plagued by political mismanagement under its last three leaders and it hasn’t got any better under this one.

Strike one for  Andrew Little came with the very tardy payment of a contractor. Bad enough in itself from a former union head and at least of bad a reflection on his office:

. . . Any small business owner will tell you that the one thing they really hate is people who don’t pay their bills.

But one of the worst aspects of this is the shocking political management. Someone, anyone on Little’s team should have paid this bill. It was obvious that Cohen would go feral.

Even when Cohen wrote about it in the National Business Review, Labour still didn’t pay, allowing Steven Joyce to expose and embarrass Little in Parliament.

Why didn’t chief of staff Matt McCarten step in and clean up the mess?

All for the sake of $950 and a bit of internet banking.

First strike on the hypocrisy front for Andrew Little.

And strike one for mismanagement.

Strike two was Little’s failure to consult other parties on the membership of the  Intelligence and Security committee:

Climate change targets, deep sea oil drilling, the Trans Pacific Partnership … there are many thorny issues that could divide Labour and Greens.

In fact, all it took was membership of a parliamentary committee and some clumsy manners from Andrew Little.

The Labour leader raised the hackles of out-going co-leader Russel Norman by excluding his party from Parliament’s Intelligence and Security committee, instead choosing David Shearer.

The Green party learned of the decision through the media – Little had not even informed his own chief of staff Matt McCarten.

To further rub salt into the wound, Little then slighted co-leader Metiria Turei by suggesting she could not compete with Shearer’s knowledge, skills or understanding of security issues.

He appeared to under-estimate the Green Party’s anger, quipping “ask them [if they are upset] tomorrow” when pressed on how he would smooth ruffled feathers.

Little’s first mistake was in seemingly breaking the law by not consulting with the other opposition parties. Refusing to take Norman seriously was his second – and the Greens retaliated with fury. . .

Little is right about Shearer being better qualified than Turei or, as David Farrar points out, any member of the Green Party:

 The Greens are effectively opposed to the very existence of the intelligence agencies. Hence appointing them to an oversight committee means that their interest is just to find ways to discredit the agencies, not to play a constructive role in oversight. . .

However, that doesn’t excuse Little’s failure to follow the law in consulting other Opposition parties.

Political leaders don’t get a very long honeymoon, these two strikes signal Little’s is over and that he’s dogged by the problems of mismanagement which dogged the last three Labour leaders.

P.S. the column in which David Cohen raised the issue of the non-payment is here.

. . . What I was being asked to provide was not media advice or training, after all, but to take out a few hours to talk with Mr Little and then independently distill his views as they might sound to an outsider. Mr Matthews seemed to think his man could do with a bit more clarity. 

As assignments go, it sounded offbeat but I’ve taken far odder ones in my time.  . .

As a nosey-parker, too, I was interested to know more about the opposition’s calamitous recent history and perhaps even some of its current internal tensions. 

Happily on that last point, this was something Mr Matthews immediately hinted at with a number of less-than-enthusiastic references to Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern, along with a slightly baffling digression on how the party’s fortunes will yet be reversed by installing the MP for Kelston, Carmel Sepuloni, as deputy party leader ahead of the next general election. 

Scrolling back through a number of more recent clips of his television interviews, though, I could see why Mr Little’s friends might feel he needed a touch more clarity. 

Like many trained lawyers, and indeed working journalists, I think he tries to parse tumbling thoughts into cogent words as he speaks. Sometimes this serves him better than others. There were occasions when I couldn’t make head or tail of what he was saying. . .

 The atmosphere was congenial if a touch odd. Nobody had thought to turn the lights on, which lent a slightly film noir-ish air to the next couple of hours.

But the conversation was illuminating enough. We talked about Mr Little’s view of his own personal attributes – a lifetime of private sector engagement, an intimate knowledge of the organisation and a track record for bringing people together – and how these may or may not rejuvenate his party. 

We chatted about his time representing journalists as a union leader. He spoke about his general engagement with the media. 

From there, the conversation moved on to last year’s ghastly election campaign, Labour’s perceived image problems and what seems to me to be the piquant irony of a party claiming the mantle of diversity and yet almost consistently refusing to welcome businesspeople into its ranks. 

Interesting stuff. I wrote up my notes as best I could, and sent them off along with an invoice for the time spent. Both were received with thanks.  

Then came the silence.

Four months, many inquiring telephone calls and gazillions of emails on – as of the time of this writing – I’m still none the financially richer for having taken this oddball assignment.  Not by a bean. I’ve been left feeling rather like a one-man nocturnal performer in a Christchurch insurance office. 

Oh well. Isn’t that how things so often are for we self-employed and small business types grinding away in the engine room of the economy? 

This supports my theory that Labour and unions want to be tough on employers because of their own poor record with employees.

There are bad employers and bad employees but they are the minority. Employment law should not be designed as if all employers and sinners and all employees saints.


%d bloggers like this: