fraud
I have to give Metiria credit for being bloody minded and staunch enough to go at this for several weeks and still try and get the media to start ignoring the crime and consider this an opportunity about debating the benefit system.
Vernon Small is another journo that’s unable to last longer than Metiria.
It had to be asked if there was a minimum support a person should get, or did we accept that people would have no financial support and be left homeless and living on the street.
“Is that acceptable? I don’t think it is. I’m challenging New Zealanders to set a higher more moral bar,” she said
“It’s not actually about them, it’s about me and the moral standard I set. We surely wouldn’t be a country that says people should just be abandoned, but we have become that by default because the safety net we believe ought to help has been eroded to the point where it does not.”
As for income levels, and the need for a gap between earned income and the benefit, she points again to superannuation, which is set at 66 per cent of the average wage.
“I would like to see the benefit at something like that – or above … but you’ve got to make sure if you are going to set benefits below, say, the average wage or below the minimum wage it is still above the poverty line and that it is consistently moving and is always above the poverty line.”
The definition of when a couple have a relationship “in the nature of marriage” and the intrusive policing of it particularly angers Turei.
“It gives (WINZ) enormous discretion. It’s as minor as having sex with a person two or three times a week … and then the assumption is that in a relationship like that the other person takes financial responsibility for you and for your children.”
Turei say that is “deeply offensive and dangerous”.
“It’s offensive in that it suggests that women in particular must only be waiting on the benefit until some husband or potential husband comes along to take support of them. But they are not entitled to independent financial security as of right, and they are. But it is also dangerous … the benefits are low so people are often looking for relationships to help with their financial circumstances” and that may not mean an appropriate relationship for her or her children.
Turei says what she has been talking about is not just her personal experience but the personal experience of hundreds and hundreds of people she has known over the years who have relied on welfare and been looking for the pathways off it.
Here’s the thing.
This is an election, and we should be discussing policies of all political parties.
Next, if we are going to have a debate about the efficacy, morality and overall cost of the welfare system, this isn’t the right time to do it.
Last, the debate must not be led by someone who defrauded the taxpayer for 5 years.
Get someone who isn’t personally invested in trying to mitigate a very serious situation where she may not just lose her job, she may be convicted and face jail time.
Let’s keep in mind that the vast majority of New Zealanders think she is a criminal that needs to face the legal consequences of her poor choices in life. And let’s remind the media that we do not want her to give any more wins by taking our eye off her offending and debating the relevant merits of changes to the benefit system.
She hasn’t earned it. Any of it. Ever.