Yeah nah on welfare fraud

March 20th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Chester Borrows released:

Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows says Labour needs to be clear on where they stand on .

“Yesterday morning David Cunliffe said he would scrap our legislation to hold partners complicit in welfare fraud to account, but later in the day Labour supported it,” says Mr Borrows.

“I was pleased to have such broad support from across the Parliament, including the Labour Party, for our bill.

“So to see Mr Cunliffe promising in an online interview just that morning to scrap these changes was disappointing, even though he changed his mind later in the day.”

Another blatant moment where the answer is dependent on who the audience is. The interview with leftie journo Gordon Campbell is here:

Does Labour oppose the government’s new welfare fraud policy whereby the partners of welfare fraudsters will be criminally liable for the fraud, and for the repayment of the entire amount – and not simply for the amount from which they might have indirectly benefitted. If re-elected will Labour retain this provision or scrap it ?

Scrap it.

Yet Labour went on to vote for the bill at the second reading. And they wonder why voters don’t know what they stand for.

Give the Greens some credit – they voted against the bill, as they are opposed to it. Only Labour states they will repeal it, yet vote for it!

13 Responses to “Yeah nah on welfare fraud”

  1. CrazyIvan (145 comments) says:

    Labour’s John Kerry moment – “we were against the Bill, until we voted for it!”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Mobile Michael (985 comments) says:

    He was just speaking out of the left side of his mouth to Gordon Campbell, then the right side when he voted Aye.

    But of all the cock ups, this has to be the worst – voting in Parliament for the exact opposite of your stated intention just a few hours later. It shows anything you ever say about policy can never be trusted.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (22,078 comments) says:

    The Labour Party supports bludgers, loafers, parasites and idlers. No wonder all these losers vote for the socialists!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. igm (2,477 comments) says:

    Labourites operate on the same level as their public servant supporters. Once having worked for a short time as a public servant, I found them to be indecisive (playing to the gallery), incapable of making personal decisions, freeloading on any decision that was found to a problem by a lower graded employee, showing envy of anyone in a better position, and invariably being nothing but greasy, ill informed little narks. We now make a point of not entertaining employment of these drones as they are weeded out of their over salaried, underperforming jobs. Cunliffe and his bunch of trough snouting leeches fit the criteria perfectly.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mjw (629 comments) says:

    Voting for the bill on the second reading is not that same as not scrapping the policy. What else is in the bill? What else is intended to be amended? This is more fairly blatant spin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Southern Raider (2,110 comments) says:

    Should the Act not be modified to not only include partners of welfare fraudsters, but also fellow directors and trustees of publicly funded Maori groups that go rouge and start handing out $50k cheques to their mates?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Elaycee (4,538 comments) says:

    No one can ever call David Cunliffe a ‘Yes’ man…. ‘cos when the puppet masters say ‘No’, Cunliffe says ‘No’….

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Whilst they voted for the Bill, it does not mean they support it entirely.

    Voting for it was a good move, should they be in power next year (highly unlikely, but whatever) they are then in a position to alter it, scrapping the parts that are untenable and adding what they would like.

    As a strategy, its not that bad. It allows them to be seen to do something about the rising cost of welfare fraud, but it also allows them to be seen to acknowledge that what National has done isn’t entirely satisfactory.

    It other words it ticks all the boxes and offers something to both sides of the argument – certainly not a bad thing in an election year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ed Snack (2,798 comments) says:

    What’s this about groups going reddish, this “rouge” ? Surely it must be rogue ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. BeaB (2,513 comments) says:

    I bet this never hits the media.
    “Labour votes for bill Cunliffe says he will scrap”
    Yet another headline we will never see.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. publicwatchdog (5,631 comments) says:

    Where do both Labour and National stand on ‘corporate welfare’ fraud?

    Where does the Tax Payers’ Union stand on ‘corporate welfare’ fraud?

    FYI – here’s where I stand on ‘corporate welfare’, corruption and ‘white collar’ crime.

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. igm (2,477 comments) says:

    Penny: When it comes to fraud, evidently you would be No. 1 contender!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. publicwatchdog (5,631 comments) says:

    errr…. anonymous GUTLESS igm – got some FACTS to back your bullshit?

    Of course not ………… (yawn)

    Penny Bright

    (Who at least puts her name to her posts)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote