Stuff has their full statement which is worth reading:

The controversy that has arisen as a result of the speech by co-leader Metiria Turei at the AGM during the launch of the Incomes Package, along with subsequent developments, has put each Green Party candidate in a difficult personal situation. 

The Green caucus reached a position on 25 July that this was a matter of personal conscience, and that individual candidates are free to express their views. The principle of honest politics is a central tenet of Green kaupapa – the basis of stable and responsible government. 

We do not believe that lying to a public agency – WINZ, IRD or any other – can ever be condoned. Public trust in the good faith of both government agencies and individual citizens is essential to the integrity and cohesion of a society. It is critical that neither be undermined through any action by any person. There are public remedial procedures for an agency’s breach of faith. The guardian of individual ethics remains with the individual. 

Moral theory justifies civil disobedience on occasion – when an unjust law threatens the integrity of society. This is limited to breach of the most fundamental human rights, such as torture, apartheid or genocide. It does not stretch to the adequacy of an income benefit. 

We are aware that some of the policies of the National Government of the 1990s caused serious hardship to individuals. We are aware that similar hardship was caused to individuals by Labour Government policies in the 1980s. 

New Zealand society must ensure that all its people are properly fed and clothed and housed. But we must acknowledge that decisions taken by policy-makers, past and present, are taken with the interests of the country at heart and to the best of their abilities. 

The timing by Metiria of her admissions, and her continuing justification of her actions, we see as incompatible with the standards of leadership of the Green Party. 

The Green Party needs a new co-leader to accompany James Shaw into the Election, so that it can be true to its central principle of honest politics and responsible government. Trust matters in politics now, more than ever. 

As long as Metiria remains co-leader of the Party, we are unable to support the Green campaign for the 2017 Election, and will be obliged to withdraw as candidates, from the list and in our electorates.

A guest post by Radvad:

So Metiria, you want to have a conversation about social justice. Ok then, I will bite and outline a couple of things your one dimensional view of welfare overlooks.

Firstly, for social justice to be just it must be a two way street, otherwise it is not just. Beneficiaries are not the only ones with skin in the game, benefactors are just as involved, perhaps more so. Of course the former want to know they can expect a steady income for a period of time but the latter also have expectations. They need to know their money is being used to help only those in genuine need, that it is used responsibly and that it is considered a hand up and not a hand out. Most importantly benefactors need assurance all measures are taken to prevent the system being ripped off. Accordingly it is socially just that there is an expectation that beneficiaries be as work ready as possible, that they be honest about their circumstances and that both parents contribute to the welfare of their child(ren) whether or not they live together.

There is another angle I doubt you have considered. The giving and receiving of gratitude is a significant thread in the fabric of a functioning society. Unfortunately the state has put itself in between benefactors and beneficiaries so gratitude does not get a look in. The result is both parties become resentful, one because they do not have enough and the other because they consider the system is being abused.

Meteria, I invite you to consider a totally different scenario to the one you find yourself in now. Just imagine if, when you announced your historical fraud, you also announced you had approached social welfare to assess what you should repay, that you were deeply sorry you had abused the trust that benefactors had in the system and that you are extremely GRATEFUL for the assistance you and Piu Piu received.

If you had taken this course I confidently suggest we would really be having that conversation you keep talking about and Green party support would now be north of 20%. Such a lost opportunity.

 Radvad makes a very good point that the issue is not what was done 25 years ago but how Turei has spoken about it.

Stuff reports:

Gareth Morgan’s Opportunities Party (TOP) wants to make it illegal to kick out a tenant for any reason other than lack of payment or damage to property.

Totally nuts. So you buy a house, and put a tenant in there. A few years later you want to move in, and you can’t. You’re locked out of your own house for life!

Selling a rental property would not be a reason to get rid of tenants – any new buyer would need to take them on.

So the tenant has far far more rights than the owner. This will be a good way to destroy the rental supply. Who would ever want to rent their place out?

Rent increases would also be restricted so tenants could not be priced out intentionally.

Oh God he has gone full Muldoon. Price controls. Next it will be carless days and prescriptions for butter.

A guest post by Emma Kelly:

The day of the 2016 US Presidential Election I took a cab from New Jersey to downtown Manhattan. As we drove through the West End, my driver pointed to protestors outside Hillary Clinton’s election-night party headquarters. New Yorkers of all ages and backgrounds waved signs screaming– Hispanics for Trump, Gays for Trump, Women for Trump. My driver was a staunch Democrat and an Obama loyalist. But he found the feminist tone of Hillary’s campaign patronising, and said despite what the media hoped for, the last thing America needed was a Clinton back in the Whitehouse. Trump’s awful, he said, but at least he’s not one of them.  

Only months earlier, and prior to Brexit, I travelled on assignment out of London and through Belfast, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff and Birmingham. Contrary to Nigel Farage’s pulsating Vote Leave campaign I saw on the road, my friends and colleagues in London were relaxed about the upcoming referendum. The Vote Remain message was predictably championed by Westminster and echoed by the mainstream media and thousands of Londoners at home in one of the most diverse cities in the world – blinkered to the millions in the regions who were screaming at a Government that wasn’t listening. 

I wasn’t surprised when the UK voted to leave the EU, nor when America elected Donald Trump as President. It was amusing, in both cases, that journalists, based out of cosmopolitan London and New York continued to report shock and outrage as their online audiences looked on and decided they too were shocked and outraged. Affected audiences couldn’t accept that there was a significant swell of public support for candidates advocating policies so contradictory to the narrative of a world they were used to – a world confined to their city, ideals and selected newsfeed.

Over time, major parties on the left and right have comprised their core-voting base and neutralised policies in an effort to win the centre ground. But the voters are no longer there – instead they are turning to candidates that staunchly champion nationhood and change to the political administration, as we know it. Campaigns in the UK and US, including the rise of Bernie Sanders, were built and fuelled on an unrelenting distrust for the political elite. Shades of the urban-rural divide that fuelled Vote Leave champions in Britain paralleled Trump’s mandate to distance himself from Washington and resonate with disenfranchised voters in every corner of America by promising something different.

Interestingly, local commenters have dismissed similar scenarios playing out in New Zealand (unsurprisingly from Auckland and the Wellington beltway.) We’re at the height of a digital media revolution, yet as Farage and Trump’s popularity proved, understanding the changing pulse of nation coupled with a targeted on-the-ground campaign, is political dynamite. And in a country as geographically small as ours, parties underestimate this at their peril. I recall when National released another routine infographic ahead of the Northland by-election in 2015 Winston Peters’ campaign bus had already pulled into the Electorate with a promise that a change was going to come. And it did.

Regardless of her media-magnetism, Jacinda Ardern’s appointment to Leader will only be as effective as Labour’s capacity to resonate beyond the online and urban fringe by championing a vision that is not only authentic, but also unapologetically bold. And with less than fifty days to September 23, the grassroots campaign must be extraordinary. Winston Peters knows a campaign doesn’t start weeks from polling day – it started three years ago. He also knows the media will write the election narrative we read, the same media that believed Americans were with Hillary, when in fact they weren’t. 

Emma Kelly is a public relations manager and former government press secretary currently based in Canada.

One News reports:

The poll asked Kiwis what their view was on the Maori seats.

Stuff reports:

Lawyers are in gravy and ratepayers are getting a stuffing as Lower Hutt councillors rack up big bills to settle disputes over such vital questions as whether a roast chicken buffet counts as “lavish”.

Ratepayers have been footing bills totalling more than $20,000 since a change to Hutt City Council’s code of conduct resulted in its chief executive calling in lawyers to adjudicate scraps between councillors.

The most expensive stoush, between deputy mayor David Bassett and councillor Campbell Barry, cost more than $14,000.

Astonishing.

Another, also involving a complaint against Barry, cost $7500 and centred around whether Barry had been accurate to refer to councillors eating a “lavish” buffet of roast chicken after voting to exclude some low-paid staff from receiving a living wage.

Cr Barry seems to be very costly.

Another scrap, between Lisa Bridson and Chris Milne over a karakia (Maori prayer) at a meeting in April, resulted in a bill for $5720, and a finding that there was no need for further action.

Milne had earlier told council chief executive Tony Stallinger that he was unhappy the complaint had been made, and he regarded it a waste of time and money.

Bridson complained because Milne disagreed with her on the need for a karakia!

When two of your own MPs say the party is morally compromised by having a fraudster as their leader, it is very damaging. This is very different to having opponents say it.

With Labour finally having a leader that appeals to the same demographics as the Greens, there is a risk their support could collapse below the 5% threshold, which would put them out of Parliament. Their recent results are:

• 1999 5.2%
• 2002 7.0%
• 2005 5.3%
• 2008 6.7%
• 2011 11.1%
• 2014: 10.7%

Before Labour started collapsing post-Clark they were a 5% to 7% party. If Labour claims back their lost supporters, then they only have around a 2% buffer over the 5% threshold.

Lloyd Burr at Newshub says:

Thanks to Metiria Turei, the Green Party is in the midst of an identity crisis.

It’s a crisis that cuts to the heart of what the party stands for, and what its priorities are. 

Just as importantly, it cuts to the heart of its name: The Greens.

The party doesn’t look like the strong, unwavering voice for the environment anymore.

It is not focussed on forests and rivers, or climate change, or conservation underfunding, or waste and pollution reduction.

It is now a party focussed on fighting for the rights of beneficiaries. It is focussed on legitimising benefit fraud, boosting welfare payments, and removing welfare obligations.

Yep.

Patrick Gower chips in:

Metira Turei has switched the Green Party into a meltdown mode that it refuses to switch off.

The Greens seem to be in pathological denial about the damage that Turei’s benefit fraud admission is doing.

If Monday’s double resignation of two senior MPs isn’t enough to send the message “enough is enough”, then what is?

The Greens need to step back and ask themselves the most simple and important of questions – how does this look to voters? It obviously looks appalling, but the Greens can’t see that.

The Greens are curled up in a collective “defensive crunch” of self-denial.

They need to realise Turei has not started a debate about poverty; she has started a debate about Metiria Turei’s benefit fraud.

They need to realise the resignations of David Clendon and Kennedy Graham are not going to look to the wider public like clearing out of dead wood; rather, it will make the party look woefully unstable just seven weeks out from the election.

This is the issue for voters. Do they want a National-led Government or a Labour-Greens Government?

They need to realise very serious charges may yet come from the Ministry of Social Development – charges of fraud under the Crimes Act are possible.

If charges are laid, and only then Turei stands down it will be too late.

Audrey Young writes:

The party establishment moved to contain the fall-out in the way that other parties do – to criticise the two rebel MPs as pretty useless and lazy, which is particularly unfair on Kennedy Graham who works his butt off in strange areas of international law.

That accounts for their joint statement sounding more like a judgment from The Hague.

But the telling line is the one that says “the timing by Metiria of her admissions, and her continuing justification of her actions, we see as incompatible with the standards of leadership of the Green Party.”

It is the “continuing justification” of her actions that have caused so much division across the country, not the original offence.

This is the key. It is not what Turei did 25 years ago that is the real issue. It is the Greens trying to portray what she did as right, claiming she had no choice.

It is comforting to know that there are some in the Green Party who do not see Turei as a perpetual victim, and that there are members in the party who are trying to have normal standards apply.

But there she stays at No 1 because to resign would be to admit that Turei’s calculated gambles, including admitting benefit fraud, had been a disaster.

A poll showed a majority of even Green voters were critical of her.

And this is the response from the Greens youth wing. Speaks for itself.

Stuff reports:

Two senior Green MPs have resigned in protest at their co-leader Metiria Turei’s refusal to step down in the wake of revelations she lied to obtain a benefit. 

Kennedy Graham and David Clendon made the threat to quit in protest on Monday afternoon. It is understood their resignations were accepted and they will retire at the election.

The pair are two of the longest-serving members of the Green Party.

First congratulations to Graham and Clendon for putting principle first. A very brave thing to do.

It is good there are some in the Greens that do not condone fraud and are willing to say so.

Green Party general manager Sarah Helm said the pair had done very little in the way of campaigning, and suggested they had been disgruntled for some time. 

“Neither of these candidates have been campaigning for us all year. David’s made one phone call, and Kennedy’s put in about three or four hours worth of calls. 

“My understanding is that both of them were not happy with their list placings either,” Helm said. 

Kennedy Graham was ranked No 8, only one lower than last time. This is a safe as houses ranking for him, so to suggest his resignation is not a matter of principle is just smearing him.

What this makes clear is how unstable a Labour-Green Government would be, with the Greens having split over Turei’s frauds.

The Herald reports:

Sir John Key will be awarded a Doctor of Commerce honorary degree from the University of Canterbury. …

University of Canterbury chancellor Dr John Wood said Key was a valued alumnus.

“Sir John provided strong support to the University of Canterbury, especially in the years since the 2010/2011 earthquakes,” Wood said.

“His leadership has been critical to the rebuild, not just on campus but in the region in general, and we will be eternally grateful to him for that.

“He has also been a supporter of the university in a personal capacity and I sincerely hope that his connection with this institution will continue and strengthen in time to come.”

Asked if Key could now use the title “Dr”, a university spokeswoman said she believed the honorific “Sir” outranked it.

That is correct. He will be just SIr John Key, not Dr Sir John Key.

If he was not knighted he could be The Right Honourable Doctor John Key. That would really upset some people 🙂

The Herald spent a day with David Seymour:

David Seymour takes after his mother, Vickie, says Nicola.

“He is intelligent, compassionate and driven. Vickie was incredibly special and gorgeous to look at. She had a huge personality.

“She was determined and she would never take no for an answer. She was passionate about education – she would be so proud David is the under-secretary for education.”

Victoria Seymour was 50 years old when she died from liver cancer, 10 years ago. Seymour was 24. He admired his mother’s tenacity and insight.

“My mum was a strong individualist – she was one of the last people in the Western world to contract polio. She was told she wouldn’t be able to work, go to university, have children or drive a car – but she did all those things.

“What she showed to me was you can overcome anything if you are determined to.”

24 is an awfully young age to lose your mother.

Before she died, Vickie recorded a DVD message for each of her three sons’ future partners.

Seymour says it has taken years to process his mother’s death and he still hasn’t watched it.
“I am saving that because I haven’t got a partner locked in yet.

God that would be an emotional thing to watch one day.

Seymour strongly supports euth­anasia, although his mother’s death didn’t factor in his views.

“Mum died very comfortably in ­palliative care and for a lot of people that works. But I am worried about those people for whom it doesn’t. I ­believe people should have choice. I think it’s barbaric in 2017 that some people are trying to impose their values on others.”

Which is the crox of the debate – allowing individuals to decide what is best for them.

He left school with a bursary at the end of the sixth form to study engineering at Auckland University because he wanted to meet girls. “It wasn’t the smartest strategy,” he adds.

Considering the gender ratio in Engineering, no it wasn’t!

Seymour rents a two-storey house in Remuera with three flatmates.

The white stone house has no ­garden and feels like a student flat with ­minimal furnishings. There are no photos or paintings in the lounge, just a huge heat pump, a big TV and a wall of books.

David may be one of the poorest people living in Remuera!

Seymour is keen to show off his tidy bedroom – he says he made his bed for our ­benefit. His seven suits, “one for each day of the week”, are hanging neatly in the open wardrobe and his shoes are stacked in rows.

Very organised.

He has recently ­rekindled the flame with Rachel Morton, former TV3 reporter and now senior adviser to Deputy Prime Minister Paula ­Bennett.

“I think Rachel has tremendous ­tenacity – the way she has got all her jobs – mostly by bloody mindedness and harassing people. She has ­enormous self-belief and drive.

Rachel was one of the first television reporters to interview me. Can’t quite recall what it was about – something to do with the Internet.

The Greens have announced their new tax policy, to reflect the principles of their welfare policy. The summary is:

1. If expenses are tight, just pay as much tax as you think you can manage. It’s fine if it is less than what the law says.
2. No more will you be harrassed by the state by being asked to verify things such as expenses or income. No more tax audits. We will simply take your word for it.
3. You can income share if you want to. Split your income between flatmates or don’t. Up to you.
4. Lying to the IRD is no longer an offence if you have children.
5. If your business receives income from new clients, you don’t need to pay tax on this income until they have been a client for three years.

If it is demeaning and harrassing for people applying for a benefit to prove things such as whether they actually are looking for work, or actually are sick, then it is surely demeaning and harrassing for taxpayers to have to prove things to the IRD.

Stuff reports:

ACT leader David Seymour is promising to “cut red tape” to allow at least 600,000 Auckland homes to be built.

Seymour made the announcement in the west Auckland suburb of Henderson on Sunday morning.

It doubled as the launch of his book, Own Your Future, which opens with the story of a Waitakere family blocked from subdividing its land as the property falls outside the region’s Rural Urban Boundary. …

“Land use restrictions are now responsible for 56 per cent of the average Auckland house price, according to one of the Government’s own reports released last month,” he said.

“This cost is the single largest cause of poverty, inequality, and sickness in Auckland and beyond.

“ACT says it’s crazy to ban people from building homes during a chronic housing shortage.”

Seymour said ACT would move to abolish the Rural Urban Boundary and push to reclassify areas like Waitakere, Karaka, and Clevedon as residential. 

“These areas are not treasured natural landscapes. They are grassy fields with the occasional barn or horse.

“Allowing housing in these areas should be a bare minimum for any Government.”

The party would fund the infrastructure to service the new homes by sharing the GST on construction with councils, he said.

This is the only policy that is a sustainable long-term solution to land and house inflation.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s new deputy leader Kelvin Davis has shown a willingness to be his party’s attack dog – calling the Health Minister the “doctor of death” and comparing Bill English’s personality to that of a rock.

The nasty party just can’t change its spots.

Jenny Ruth writes:

The EY business journalism awards have been particularly kind to me.

In their first and second years, I won the radio section and was awarded prize money of $1000 each time. …

So I felt sick last Thursday when I learned EY had disqualified the work of my colleague, Karyn Scherer, on printing company Fuji Xerox New Zealand and its questionable sales tactics and dodgy accounting.

The pride I’d taken in receiving my awards evaporated when I learned the reason for that disqualification was that Fuji Xerox was an audit client of EY’s.

The EY awards, excluding stories on EY audit clients, are worse than no awards at all.

This has particular resonance for me.

Since May, I’ve been working on one of the biggest series of stories of my more than 30-year career as a journalist.

That’s the worsening news from Fletcher Building’s construction division and the seeming inaction – until last month – of its board.

Now guess who Fletcher Building’s auditor is? No prizes for guessing it’s EY.

EY’s stance has also destroyed the value of the awards I’d already won.

The prize money was always of less importance to me than winning the awards themselves but, the longer I thought about it, the more the money felt tainted.

So, on Friday afternoon I posted the framed certificate from the second award and wrote a cheque for $2000 and sent them back to EY

This is doing huge damage to EY’s brand, and to make it worse they have not responded in any way to the controversy. This is just not acceptable. If they did censor the entries on the basis of whom their clients up they need to front up and apologise for doing it, and say it will not happen again.

But by letting this fester, firms will start to conclude they don’t want EY as their accountants or auditors due to the brand damage.

The Washington Post reports:

In a nation where malnutrition is soaring amid shortages of food and medicine, the nearly worthless currency, the bolívar, has entered free fall. The Venezuelan currency lost 45.3 percent of its value in one week, as the price of the dollar on the black market nearly doubled.

In a supermarket in eastern Caracas, shoppers expressed sticker shock.

“I came a week ago and saw rice for 5,700 boliívares,” said Gina Angelats, a 62-year-old retiree. “I didn’t buy it because it seemed too expensive. But now it’s 18,000! This is unaffordable. . . . Blame the government and its socialist policies. They’ve ruined the country.”

Those who hate socialism the most are those who have experienced it. Those who love it the most travel around the world celebrating it, but never going to a country that practises it.

The Herald editorial:

One act of dishonesty may be forgiven, two becomes harder to overlook. On top of her admission that she withheld information from Social Welfare about her living arrangements on the domestic purposes benefit, Metiria Turei has been found to have enrolled for an election at a false address. It begins to look like a pattern of behaviour of a person with too little regard for the obligations of honest citizenship, and we can only wonder, what more might emerge?

I am sure there is more.

The Green Party has reason to be worried, so much so it is remarkable that it stood by her yesterday when she did no more than renounce any claim to a ministerial position in a coalition with Labour. 

A position forced on them by Labour. Otherwise I suspect they would not have ruled her out.

Despite Turei’s presence, she would no doubt prefer to deal with the Greens. But it would be much better for both parties if Turei did the decent thing and resigned, certainly from her Greens leadership and ideally from its candidate list for the next Parliament.

That is what National’s Todd Barclay has done, though Turei and her co-leader James Shaw have been calling on him to go sooner.

Barclay is going and Turei was one of those loudest in calling for him to go. But she won’t go.

Having mounted a high horse against Barclay, Shaw is now in the embarrassing position of defending Turei’s effort to stay. Both of them are at risk of much more emerging from the past she has opened for examination. Newshub’s discovery that she was listed at the same address as the father of her child while she was on the benefit, plainly caught her by surprise. She had forgotten she gave that address for electoral enrolment so that she could vote for a friend. What else has she forgotten?

Most people will be very forgiving of someone who made mistakes in their youth, if they show they have learnt from their mistakes and regret them. None of us are perfect. But Turei has been the opposite or regret. She has portrayed herself as the victim and used her personal circumstances to try and justify the Greens welfare policy. What has come out is because she decided to try and portray herself as a victim who had no choices.

The reality is she did have choices. She could have chosen to get a job. She could have chosen to seek support from the father (I suspect in fact she did, and simply didn’t declare it). She could have applied for hardship grants. She could have done less papers each year giving her time to do part-time work. She could have asked the father to sell the house he owned and use the proceeds to support them. She could have asked grandparents for support.

Instead she chose to lie to MSD and steal from taxpayers. It was a choice. She had other choices. They may not have been wonderful choices but they were choices.

Her self-portrayal and lack of remorse is what has done her the most harm.

Judith Collins announced:

Finance Minister Steven Joyce and Revenue Minister Judith Collins have today announced the Government’s final decisions on proposals to address base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS).

“The new measures will significantly strengthen our tax rules and our ability to ensure that multinationals are taxed fairly and on the basis of their actual level of economic activity in New Zealand,” Mr Joyce says.

In combination the new measures will:

• Stop foreign parents charging their New Zealand subsidiaries high interest rates to reduce their taxable profits in New Zealand.

• Stop multinationals using artificial arrangements to avoid having a taxable presence in New Zealand.

• Ensure multinationals are taxed in accordance with the economic substance of their activities in New Zealand.

• Counter strategies that multinationals have used to exploit gaps and mismatches in different countries’ domestic tax rules to avoid paying tax anywhere in the world.

• Make it easier for Inland Revenue to investigate uncooperative multinational companies.

These measures won’t solve the issue of base tax erosion, but they wil help significantly. At the end of the day though companies which operate globally will seek to have as much tax as possible paid in countries with lower corporate tax rates. This is why the corporate tax rate needs to be globally competitive – otherwise fewer companies will be tax resident in NZ.

Some tributes in the Herald:

Auckland Grammar School

“Sir John’s passion for quality education saw decades of his life committed to the education sector. His role as the 9th headmaster of Auckland Grammar School from January 1973 to May 1993, was defining. “We are grateful for Sir John’s connection and continued contributions to Auckland Grammar School until the day of his passing.”

New Zealand Cricket

“The thoughts of NZC are with the family of former All Blacks captain and Black Caps manager Sir John Graham.”

Steve Tew, NZ Rugby CEO

“DJ was a great all-round New Zealander. From his exploits on the rugby field to those in the classroom he was simply exceptional. His commitment to all aspects of the game and New Zealand society is legendary. DJ was a person I feel extremely privileged to have met. He was a leader in every endeavour he turned to, and his long list of honours and achievements are testaments to his exceptional character.”

Jonathan Coleman, Sports Minister

“RIP Sir John Graham – a great NZer who made a huge difference for so many young people. A major influence in my formative years, sadly gone.”

 

Sean Fitzpatrick, former All Blacks captain

“Our thoughts are with the family of Sir John Graham who has passed away. A good man who influenced so many lives.”

Murray Deaker, broadcaster

“I don’t know of any other single individual who has had such an influence in education in particular. Twenty-eight young men who taught under him became principals or headmasters. On top of that, his influence in the areas of rugby union and cricket are almost beyond parallel.”

Sir Michael Jones, All Black

“I was privileged to be part of the Auckland rugby team in the early and mid-90s and we were coached by Sir Graham Henry of course, and Sir DJ was our manager. They were just wonderful father figures for us, particularly DJ being the patriarch of the team and the senior statesman. He was just a wonderful presence in that squad. We were very successful and I do give credit to Sir DJ, just his mana that he had about him but also his rugby nous.”

Sir John excelled in many areas but I have little doubt his greatest impact on New Zealand was as a principal for 20 years. A strong principal can have a huge impact on the lives of the kids who go to their school, and I am sure there are tens of thousands who have benefited from his educational leadership.

Newshub reports:

An overwhelming majority of New Zealanders think Greens Co-Leader Metiria Turei was wrong to commit benefit fraud. …

In the latest Newshub Reid Research poll 74 per cent of Kiwis said it was wrong for Ms Turei to lie to get a bigger benefit. Eighteen percent said it wasn’t wrong and 8 percent didn’t know.

So do the 74% who say it was wrong, want Turei as Welfare Minister in a Labour-Green Government and implementing their policy of lifetime welfare entitlements where you can 20 years on the dole and never have to attend even a single job interview.

The vast majority of National, Labour, and NZ First voters said it was wrong for Ms Turei to lie to WINZ, as well as more than half of Green voters

Those saying it was wrong are:

• National voters 85%
• NZ First voters 77%
• Labour voters 67%
• Green voters 51%

Of course Turei still doesn’t think it was wrong. She blames taxpayers for not giving her more money. Her decision to lie is out fault, not her fault.

This is now Jacinda’s first test as Labour Leader. They have an MoU with the Greens. Does Jacinda think Metiria can serve as Deputy Prime Minister in a Labour-Green Government? Does she think she can serve in any capacity? Does she condone or condemn her welfare and electoral fraud?

To date Jacinda has said she doesn’t want to comment on other parties. I am sure she doesn’t. But her party has an MoU with the Greens. It makes it relevent.

UPDATE: Ardern to her credit has said she would be uncomfortable with Turei as a minister, leading Turei to say she will not seek to be a Minister if they are in Government. However Turei is still defiant and will not resign as co-leader.