Monday, July 17, 2017

Will They or Won't They?

Charge Meteria Turei with benefit fraud?    The NZ police, that is.

Image result for metiria turei
(My bank account was THAT big!)

After all, they had no compunction about bringing spurious prosecutions against Shane Ardern and Chester Burrows, both of which cases saw no serious harm done to anyone.

In Turei's case, it can be argued serious harm has been done to the Exchequer, encouragement has been given to other fraudsters who will say in their defense 'but Meteria said it was OK.'

Here's hoping a complaint is lodged with the police tout suite and they act on it.

If the Greens have any sense they will have one of their people bring the complaint and then they might give her the arse card before she is charged.

Question for lawyers.  Could she hang out her shingle if she is convicted of benefit fraud?

11 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

If they didn't mind the Hon. Mr English ripping off the taxpayer for tens of thousands of dollars by falsely claiming he lived in Southland to get an accommodation supplement, they're hardly likely to stir themselves for Metiria Turei's relatively trivial efforts.

Anonymous said...

Bill English acted on advice from Parliamentary Services, wrong advice. When he apprehended the mistake he paid the debt. This deceitful piece of lard knowingly ripped off all taxpayers and, after flouncing about on a decent salary for 15 years says she'll repay her ill-gotten gains. Late last week NZ First persons learned of her deceit and threatened to publish this lot so the devious waste of space had no alternative but to come clean (or as clean as she could ever be!) about her criminal behaviour. I am mindful that should the police not prosecute as they should, the Law Society will discipline her for filing lies when she was admitted to the profession. Putting her deceit to one side, what has this creature actually achieved? Ever!

Cadwallader

The Veteran said...

PM ... c'mon. The family home was in Dipton. He was the MP there. The fact he has a second home in Wgtn was neither here nor there. Many MP's with electorates outside of Wgtn do the same thing. Check the Member's pecuniary interests register if you don't believe me. When he made cabinet he declined a Ministerial residence but instead took the allowance that was allowed for then under the rules which have since been tightened.

Wanna go down the rort way and we might talk about the Green Wgtn based list MP who when she made it into cabinet, took the ministerial home, redecorated it to the tune of many thousands of dollars and let out her own home at a reported very good (for her) rental. Now that's a rip off par excellence.

The Veteran said...

Cadwallader ... 'she' is not listed on the Law Society data base as possessing a current practising certificate. She worked as a commercial lawyer degree before offering herself up as a candidate for the McGillicuddy Serious Party in the 1993 election and for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in the 1996 election. Whatever, with the latest revelations, one might surmise she would find it somewhat difficult to pass the good character test required by the Law Society necessary for them to issue a practising certificate.

Psycho Milt said...

Bill English acted on advice from Parliamentary Services, wrong advice. When he apprehended the mistake he paid the debt.

Worthy of a defence lawyer! Also, he paid something - whether the amount he paid was the amount he'd ripped off the taxpayer for is unknown. Also - he did it only because National was getting hammered in the media, maintaining throughout that he was entitled to all that extra cash he didn't actually qualify for because "it was within the rules," a phrase that historians should consider as the leitmotiv of the Key government.

The family home was in Dipton. He was the MP there.

He and his wife both lived and worked in Wellington, living in a house they owned (tax-dodging trust notwithstanding), and yet he falsely claimed to be living in Dipton, Southland, because there was cash in it. Turei has admitted nothing on the financial scale involved in English's scam. Funnily enough, like Turei, English also claimed that his deceit was the right thing to do, although, unlike Turei, he couldn't claim he was trying to keep his family housed and fed, he just wanted a shitload of taxpayer cash on top of his fat salary and the rules offered him a way of doing it if he was just willing to pretend he and his family live in Southland. Top bloke.

Ciaron said...

PM,

One was as close to fraud as it can be, without actually being fraud(and no less distasteful for it), the other was out and out unquestionable fraud... It's not a difficult concept.

You also haven't addressed my question from the other thread about beneficiary's being entitled to the same standard of living as those who pay their own way.

Psycho Milt said...

I'll leave it to the lawyers to figure out which was fraud and which wasn't. I just find it instructive that right-wingers have no great issue with the already-wealthy ripping off the taxpayer as a matter of greed, while the poor lying to WINZ because the alternative is failing to pay the rent or feed their kids prompts a burning moral outrage.

And that does address your earlier question. Beneficiaries may not be entitled to the same standard of living as people who work full time, but they are entitled to enough to keep them out of poverty, and one of the government's jobs is to ensure that entitlement is met. Since Richardson's black budget, people are having to lie to WINZ if they want to keep their heads above water - blame the successive governments of 1991 - 2017 for that, not the beneficiaries.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt, you are not doing yourself any favours. There is no genuine poverty in NZ.

Pause for a moment ans ask yourself why it was a National administration which gave beneficiaries their first genuine increase in benefits in what? Forty years? Where were your darlings of the left when their beneficiary hordes were in dire need?

People do not have to lie to WINZ. They choose to lie in order to gain more than that to which they are entitled.

Beneficiaries can live very well indeed if they buy at Asian vegie shops, cook their own meals and give up dope and tobacco.

Ciaron said...

I'll leave it to the lawyers to figure out which was fraud and which wasn't.

Haven't they already done so WRT English? sounds like you're just salty about it. Still.
(to be clear, I'd be happy to see the razor taken to Parliamentary perks)

people are having to lie to WINZ if they want to keep their heads above water
I'm going to need more than your say so to accept this. From my observations, they need to lie to WINZ to maintain a lifestyle beyond what income support should reasonably fund. For example, how many times have beneficiary's been interviewed about their state of poverty, only for someone to crunch the numbers and find out the benefits eligible to receive are not significantly less than the median wage? I'm sure I remember Whaleoil doing a significant number of these stories a few years back.

Psycho Milt said...

Haven't they already done so WRT English?

Er, no. He was no more likely to get charged with fraud than Turei is. And I'm not "salty" about English, I'm just somehow reminded of the greed of this already-rich man defrauding the taxpayer, at a time when right-wingers are expressing outrage about a woman who lied to WINZ to continue being able to feed her child.

I'm going to need more than your say so to accept this.

Well, my say-so, and the beneficiaries' say-sos, and all the support groups that work with beneficiaries' say-sos, but sure, privileged people in the government who've never lived on a benefit may well be a more reliable source of information about living on a benefit. It's interesting though, that the one person in National's cabinet who has spent time on a benefit was very specific in her response to a question about it, saying that she certainly never "deliberately misled" WINZ. If you can't be honest, at least maintain plausible deniability.

Ciaron said...

Well, my say-so, and the beneficiaries' say-sos, and all the support groups that work with beneficiaries' say-sos

So, the protestations of bleeding hearts and interest groups... Still not convinced that support provided by WINZ is not enough to live on. If you want me to support the continued poor spending choices of the long term unemployable at the cost of providing for my family - and daresay saving for my retirement - well, I think Mr Pink said it best.